All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[rylah]

Progressive Zionists vs. Zionesses

 

[Sixties Fan]

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: Hyperbole, Lies and Half-Truths | HonestReporting

 

[Sixties Fan]

Sudanese writer against normalization with "Jews" because he says Israel doesn't care about human rights ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Israel, doing what needs to be done to protect its population ]

Syria: IAF attacks Iranian targets

 

[Sixties Fan]

"As a legal scholar, I needed to find out at what point in time these powers made decisions that they had a right to make. The Balfour Declaration is, no doubt, a very important moment. In the midst of the war [World War I] in November 1917, the British were worried about how it was going and decided to support the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. That was a very important political decision, even if it has no legal validity. In 1917, there was no country named 'Palestine.' The Holy Land was part of the Ottoman Empire and divided into districts. Palestine was seen as the Holy Land for the Jews. The British only conquered Jerusalem later on. So the Balfour Declaration does not serve as a basis for the Jews' right [to Jerusalem]."

In January 1919, peace talks were held in Paris. Among other things, the conference was supposed to settle the matter of who would control the countries defeated in the war. Arab and Zionist delegations appeared before representatives of the victors and laid out their demands for territory in the defeated Ottoman Empire.

"This was after the deal that [Chaim] Weizmann and Emir Faisal struck in January 1919," Gauthier says.

"Faisal the Hashemite made it clear he would support the Jews' claim to Palestine. He tried to gain the support of the Jews for him to control vast swathes of the Ottoman Empire – Iraq, Syria, Lebanon. But no decisions on the Middle East were made in the Paris talks. Germany and Austro-Hungary gave us their rights to any of the territories. This is the key development in international law I was looking for, the moment at which the victorious powers [in World War I] gave up their claims."

A historic turning point for the Jews took place in San Remo in April 1920.

"For two days, representatives of the victorious nations discussed what to do with the Ottoman Empire's land and how to respond to the demands from the Arabs and the Jews. On April 25, they made the decision: Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Belgium, and Japan agreed that the Jews could establish a national home in Palestine. The most fervent supporter was David Lloyd George of Britain. The French representative asked him why Palestine should be given to the Jews. He responded by pulling out a map that showed the boundaries of the Holy Land in the time of King David and King Solomon," he says.

Q: In other words, including Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria?

"Indeed. San Remo was the first time that the Jews' historical right to the Land of Israel was recognized. The powers that had all the authority recognized that historical connection. The San Remo decision is anchored in the Treaty of Sevres that was signed with Turkey in the summer of 1920, which was not ratified by the Turks. But in 1923, in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Turks gave up ownership of territory in the Middle East, and the content of the Treaty of Sevres wasn't changed at all. That agreement clearly states that the rights [to the land] are transferred to the winning powers.

"The only difference between Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria is that Israel, the Jewish state, has adopted its right to Jerusalem. When the U.N. publishes resolutions referring to 'occupied Palestinian territories,' the term has no validity when it comes to international law, since these territories were never Palestinian. The term 'occupied' might be correct, if it is used to indicate that their status will be determined in the future."

Gauthier makes it clear that he is not taking a political stance.

"As a legal scholar, I have determined that it is not just to claim that Jews/Israelis anywhere in Jerusalem are thieves or settlers who illegally took over something that isn't theirs," he says.

"The rights [to Jerusalem] were given to the Jews at a specific point in history. That is relevant to every negotiation and any future agreement about the status of Jerusalem. The problem is that a certain political narrative has taken the place of legal arguments."

(full article online)

http://www.israelhayom.com/2018/11/30/international-consensus-on-jerusalem-is-baseless/

 

[Billo_Really]

There were several pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
In fact the Arab pogroms were the initial trigger that caused Jews to organize politically worldwide, this organization is known today as Zionism.

Zionism was a reaction to Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine exactly during the time You mentioned. The Damascus affair is just one example of the pogroms that caused Jews to raise arms and seek independence from Muslim rule:

Damascus affair - Wikipedia
Influence of the incident and reactions to it[edit]
The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]

According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers Les Archives Israélites de France (1840-1935) in Paris or The Jewish Chronicle (1841 ff.) in London."[9]

You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.

Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your math is incorrect.

Majority of the land -78% was already given to an Arab state.
The 90% didn't become a majority by peaceful means.

My math is beyond reproach. So are my conclusions.

I think the Israelis killed Bush41. Because they thought we weren't giving them enough aid.

 

[rylah]

There were several pogroms against Palestinian Jews.
In fact the Arab pogroms were the initial trigger that caused Jews to organize politically worldwide, this organization is known today as Zionism.

Zionism was a reaction to Arab pogroms in Syria-Palestine exactly during the time You mentioned. The Damascus affair is just one example of the pogroms that caused Jews to raise arms and seek independence from Muslim rule:

Damascus affair - Wikipedia
Influence of the incident and reactions to it[edit]
The incident and its repercussions were considerable. According to Hasia R. Diner, in The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000, "For the Jews, the Damascus affair launched modern Jewish politics on an international scale, and for American Jews it represented their first effort at creating a distinctive political agenda. Just as the United States had used this affair to proclaim its presence on the global scale, so too did American Jews, in their newspapers and at mass meetings, announce to their coreligionists in France and England that they too ought to be thought of players in global Jewish diplomacy."[8]

According to Johannes Valentin Schwarz, the events also encouraged the growth of the modern Jewish press. "As a result, a sense of solidarity was evoked among the Jewish communities of Europe they had never experienced before. Thus, the Damascus Affair gave birth to modern Jewish press especially in Western Europe, such as to the long-lived papers Les Archives Israélites de France (1840-1935) in Paris or The Jewish Chronicle (1841 ff.) in London."[9]

You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.

Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.

Written by a Palestinian Jew of Safed about the Arab massacres of 1834:

"Now I have come to announce the large losses and afflictions that have been created in Israel in four countries, ie Jerusalem,and Hebron and the Upper Galilee, namely Safed. And the lower Galilee, namely the city of Tabriya. By the hands of the plunderers and looters that rose in the country. And they come only upon the Jews...
On Sunday, eight days in the month of Sivan, the looters, inhabitants of the villages joined with the inhabitants of the cities. They had weapons of war and shields and fell upon all the Jews and stripped their clothes from men and women. They expelled them naked from the city, and plundered all their property...
The remnants were coerced and raped whether men or women. Tore all the Torah scrolls, and their talit and tefilin and the city was abandoned... This was so for 33 days, so was done in the city of Safed, so was done in other towns."

Periodicals of people of Israel in Eretz Israel - Menachem Mendel ben- Aaaron 1800-1873
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q.Harmony much?

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, so we are constantly told.

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

(COMMENT)

I'm beginning to think that the pro-Arab Palestinians have little understanding of "Rights." I don't think they understadthe difference between "Positive Rights" - "Negative Rights," and "Obligations."

In the most general sense, "Rights" can be loosely defined as an entitlement for the Arab Palestinian.

RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
​

Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
.....................................(A negative right protects an entity from harm if they try to secure something.)
Positive Rights (obliges action, some entity is required to take an action)
.....................................(A positive right would be the right to have something provided.)

Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
Negative and Positive rights - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The issue of rights is a double-edged sword.

Israel has secured effective control of the West Bank. During the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Arab Palestians would Area "A" and the Israelis would have Area "C."

• The Arab Palestinians have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Israelis) in their political pursuits and control over Area "A."
• The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Area "C" and Sovereign Israeli Territory.
​

Similarly:

• The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.
• The Israelis DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Arab Palestinians to provide anything to the Israelis that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.​

I think that, at least for the Arab Palestinians, the "Rights" argument is a loser.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can't walk up to someone's house and tell them their house is now yours because God said so.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

Yes, so we are constantly told.

And there's no getting around the fact that there is an existing, indigenous, non-Jewish population in that area and they have rights. Rights you cannot take away.

(COMMENT)

I'm beginning to think that the pro-Arab Palestinians have little understanding of "Rights." I don't think they understadthe difference between "Positive Rights" - "Negative Rights," and "Obligations."

In the most general sense, "Rights" can be loosely defined as an entitlement for the Arab Palestinian.

RIGHT ⇔ ENTITLEMENT
The equivelency!
​

Negative Rights (an entity is required not to obstruct the right of another from execution)
.....................................(A negative right protects an entity from harm if they try to secure something.)
Positive Rights (obliges action, some entity is required to take an action)
.....................................(A positive right would be the right to have something provided.)

Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character.
Negative and Positive rights - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

The issue of rights is a double-edged sword.

Israel has secured effective control of the West Bank. During the Oslo Accords, it was agreed that the Arab Palestians would Area "A" and the Israelis would have Area "C."

• The Arab Palestinians have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Israelis) in their political pursuits and control over Area "A."
• The Israelis have the "Negative Right" not to be obstructed (by the Arab Palestinians) in their political pursuits and control over Area "C" and Sovereign Israeli Territory.
​

Similarly:

• The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Israel to provide territory to the Arab Palestinians that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.
• The Israelis DO NOT have the "Positive Right" that requires Arab Palestinians to provide anything to the Israelis that has not been mutually agreed upon by the two parties.​

I think that, at least for the Arab Palestinians, the "Rights" argument is a loser.

Most Respectfully,
R

You can't walk up to someone's house and tell them their house is now yours because God said so.

Muslims did it all the time with their pogroms.

And Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims did it all the time against Palestinian Jews from 1920 to 1948.

Look how empty of Jews Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem became during those 28 years.

Nothing new. It had been happening in Europe with the Christians clearing neighborhoods, and the Muslims did exactly the same from time to time following their gods, Jesus and Allah. Their gods, "said so".

But, let us hear you say that Only the Jews, oops, the Zionists went to Muslims houses and "took them" because their G-D "said so".

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

That is a great theme. You should make a T-Shirt or take it to the Comedy Club.

You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.

Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.

(COMMENT)

"Correlation does not imply Causation"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Muslims did it all the time with their pogroms.

And Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims did it all the time against Palestinian Jews from 1920 to 1948.

Look how empty of Jews Gaza, TransJordan, Hebron, Judea, Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem became during those 28 years.

Nothing new. It had been happening in Europe with the Christians clearing neighborhoods, and the Muslims did exactly the same from time to time following their gods, Jesus and Allah. Their gods, "said so".

But, let us hear you say that Only the Jews, oops, the Zionists went to Muslims houses and "took them" because their G-D "said so".

It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

That is a great theme. You should make a T-Shirt or take it to the Comedy Club.

You are referring to an incident that occurred in 1840 with the Ottoman Empire. First, the Palestinians are not Ottoman's and second) as I said before, there were no major incidents of violence between this time and the Zionist migration.

Ergo, Zionists imported the violence and racial hatred with them.

(COMMENT)

"Correlation does not imply Causation"

Most Respectfully,
R

How long are you going to go on defending selfish assholes who think their shit don't stink?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Billo_Really, et al,

When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"

It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.

(QUESTIONs)

The Arab Palestinians claim the RoR in four cases.

◈ That period (in general) covering 1946-to-1949.

✦ The period before Israeli sovereignty...
✦ The Period after Israeli Sovereinty and during the Armistice of 1949...

⟴ The period after the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)
⟴ The period after the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)​

◈ Thet period (in general) covering 1967-to-1988 (under Jordainan Sovereignty).
◈ That period (in general) covering 1988-to-Oslo Accord (during the period under which Israel maintained effective control).
◈ That period (in general) covering the preiod1995 (during which Israel maintained full control over Area "C" by Palestinian Agreement).​

What particular binding agreement (an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law) or "Law" covers those four periods pertaining to RoR?

◈ In November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence. However, Jordan had, by that time, abandon the sovereignty held over the territory. What, if any, does the Jordainian abandonment of the territory, leaving it in the hands of the Israeelis have on the matter and law.? The territory in question was nolonger under the sovereignty of Jordan state (terra nullius); Israel effectively occupied the territory, when Jordan expressly relinquished sovereignty.​

When you talk about RoR, I am only more confused that you don't explain to me, the period and the binding laws in effect.

Help me out here...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
Billo_Really, et al,

When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"

It has been well documented 750,000 Palestinian-Arabs were driven from their homes by Zionist terrorist groups. Don't play dumb here. You knew Arabs were driven from their homes, by your position on the right of return. What are they returning to? The homes you took.

(QUESTIONs)

The Arab Palestinians claim the RoR in four cases.

◈ That period (in general) covering 1946-to-1949.

✦ The period before Israeli sovereignty...
✦ The Period after Israeli Sovereinty and during the Armistice of 1949...

⟴ The period after the Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994)
⟴ The period after the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (26 March 1979)​

◈ Thet period (in general) covering 1967-to-1988 (under Jordainan Sovereignty).
◈ That period (in general) covering 1988-to-Oslo Accord (during the period under which Israel maintained effective control).
◈ That period (in general) covering the preiod1995 (during which Israel maintained full control over Area "C" by Palestinian Agreement).​

What particular binding agreement (an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law) or "Law" covers those four periods pertaining to RoR?

◈ In November 1988, the PLO Declared Independence. However, Jordan had, by that time, abandon the sovereignty held over the territory. What, if any, does the Jordainian abandonment of the territory, leaving it in the hands of the Israeelis have on the matter and law.? The territory in question was nolonger under the sovereignty of Jordan state (terra nullius); Israel effectively occupied the territory, when Jordan expressly relinquished sovereignty.​

When you talk about RoR, I am only more confused that you don't explain to me, the period and the binding laws in effect.

Help me out here...

Most Respectfully,
R

"...Israel effectively occupied the territory, when Jordan expressly relinquished sovereignty."

An "occupied territory" is only temporary and can't be transformed.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

It doesn't quite answer the question.

An "occupied territory" is only temporary and can't be transformed.

(COMMENT)

Who says that. Every single thing on the planet is temporary. The question is, for how long it remains in one state before it changes into another.

As asked in Posting #6135 (supra):

◈→ When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

It doesn't quite answer the question.

An "occupied territory" is only temporary and can't be transformed.

(COMMENT)

Who says that. Every single thing on the planet is temporary. The question is, for how long it remains in one state before it changes into another.

As asked in Posting #6135 (supra):

◈→ When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is a member state that refuses to follow international law.

According to Israel's logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

It doesn't quite answer the question.

Israel is a member state that refuses to follow international law.

According to Israel's logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

(COMMENT)

◈→ When was the "Right of Return" (RoR) established as "Law?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Newsweek thinks there was once a Palestinian state ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Shusha]

According to Israel's logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland.

Your analogy is faulty since both Germany and Poland existed as States prior to any annexation or conflict. One State entered another State's sovereign territory. Clearly and obviously a violation of international law.

You are deliberately misrepresenting "Israel's logic", in order to demonize Israel. Israel in no way suggests that it is lawful for the sovereign of one State to annex the sovereign territory of another State.