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

[Billo_Really]

Yes. That is what Humanity says as well. But no one wants to defend their claim. So, defend it. Where, when and by what actions did the Jewish people start the war with the entire Arab nations?

I just did this with that sixties homer. Two things: 1) Jewish people did not start a war with arab nations. And 2) why do you keep bringing up Jews, when this is not a religious issue? The issue is not people being mad at Jews because of their Jewishness. It's about Zionist terrorist groups, taking away the inalienable rights of Palestinian-Arabs, by force, after the British vacated the area. That's why the Arab armies of surrounding nations went in to do, albeit failed. They went in to enforce the law after the British refused to do so.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yes! Exactly. You've finally got it. BOTH peoples have the right to return. Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have an inherent, inviolable right to live in that land. Both peoples also have an inherent, inviolable right to self-determination and sovereignty in that land.

Agree or disagree?

Did you just make up a word?

What is "inviolable"?

 

[Shusha]

Yes. That is what Humanity says as well. But no one wants to defend their claim. So, defend it. Where, when and by what actions did the Jewish people start the war with the entire Arab nations?

I just did this with that sixties homer. Two things: 1) Jewish people did not start a war with arab nations. And 2) why do you keep bringing up Jews, when this is not a religious issue? The issue is not people being mad at Jews because of their Jewishness. It's about Zionist terrorist groups, taking away the inalienable rights of Palestinian-Arabs, by force, after the British vacated the area. That's why the Arab armies of surrounding nations went in to do, albeit failed. They went in to enforce the law after the British refused to do so.

Well, I keep bringing up Jews because "Zionists" is nonsense term.

So we agree that the Jewish people are not the cause of the war between Jews and Arabs. Cool.

The conflict is about (nonsense word really meaning Jews) taking away the inalienable rights of Palestinian Arabs, by force. Cool. What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arabs? What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Jews?

And in a previous message you claim that the problem started in 1967. In this post you claim the problem started when the British vacated the area which means 1948. So which is it? 1948 or 1967?

 

[Shusha]

Yes! Exactly. You've finally got it. BOTH peoples have the right to return. Both the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have an inherent, inviolable right to live in that land. Both peoples also have an inherent, inviolable right to self-determination and sovereignty in that land.

Agree or disagree?

Did you just make up a word?

What is "inviolable"?

in·vi·o·la·ble
/inˈvīələbəl/
adjective

1. never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

OH Stop for a minute and thinks about what you said...

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

You're playing word games. Do the Jews have the right to return? Well, so do the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Ref:

❖ S/747 16 May 1948 •
❖ S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949 •
❖ A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 •​

First off → the Provisional Government of Israel was NOT based on the "Right of Return (RoR)." It was based in fact on two key positions:

• The Jewish Inhabitance of the territory took such steps, as called for by the 27 Nov '47 A/RES/181 (II).
• The Jewish Inhabitance of the territory implemented (put into effect) the Plan pertaining to applicable recommendations.
• The Jewish people exercised their Right to Self-Destermination in the act of proclaiming the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine called Israel.
  
• Imbedded in the proclaimation was the open invitation to all Jews (world-wide) to participate in the creation of a nation based on the intended behavior of Liberty, Justice, and Peace.
• The nation would include the notion that political equity extends to all it citizen (no distinctions of separation).

The second point is that you may read the three essential documents that actually key in the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. And in reviewing those documents, the RoR was not mentioned once.

Finally, Israel has the right to defend itself from Arab League or Arab Palestinian threats to use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

181 was a non-binding resolution.
You cannot exercise your right of self-determination, by stripping away the same right from another group.
The creation of the state of Israel violates THE THREE OATHS.
Arabs in Israel are treated like 2nd class citizens.
And finally, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

 

[Billo_Really]

International law states a territory under occupation cannot change ownership.

I'm not at all sure that international law says that definitively. Feel free to quote relevant passages form actual, you know, law. But in order to prove this claim of changed ownership, you would have to prove that the territory was previously under sovereignty A and that is is now under sovereignty B and that A occupied B. I'll leave you to fill out the blanks of A and B.

The law states...

"Territory is considered occupied when it is placed under the authority of the hostile army."
​

That doesn't say anything about who the owner is.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, clearly not MINE. But by that I assume you mean Israel's. I understand your claim. That is, I understand what you claim. I want you to defend your claim.

Prior to the 1967 war, who held sovereignty over which land? Be specific. Provide references to documents. You don't have to quote them or link them, I've read them all, just say.

For example, "the Treaty of Lausanne says...." or "the Mandate for Palestine says..." or "the Israeli/Jordan Armistice Agreement says..."

Defend your claim that the land belonged to a certain someone prior to 1967. Good luck.

It does not matter who the land belonged to. All that matters, is it was not Israel. That is land Israel seized in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. That's what the Nazis did and the world said no. Not then, not now.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, I keep bringing up Jews because "Zionists" is nonsense term.

So we agree that the Jewish people are not the cause of the war between Jews and Arabs. Cool.

The conflict is about (nonsense word really meaning Jews) taking away the inalienable rights of Palestinian Arabs, by force. Cool. What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arabs? What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Jews?

And in a previous message you claim that the problem started in 1967. In this post you claim the problem started when the British vacated the area which means 1948. So which is it? 1948 or 1967?

The occupation started in '67. The major violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. The inalienable land rights of Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the same. Zionists moving into the area at the turn of the last century, do not have those same rights.

 

[Billo_Really]

in·vi·o·la·ble
/inˈvīələbəl/
adjective

1. never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored.

I think "inalienable" is more succinct.

in·al·ien·a·ble
/inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   

 

[rylah]

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

OH Stop for a minute and thinks about what you said...

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

You're playing word games. Do the Jews have the right to return? Well, so do the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Ref:

❖ S/747 16 May 1948 •
❖ S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277 4 March 1949 •
❖ A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949 •​

First off → the Provisional Government of Israel was NOT based on the "Right of Return (RoR)." It was based in fact on two key positions:

• The Jewish Inhabitance of the territory took such steps, as called for by the 27 Nov '47 A/RES/181 (II).
• The Jewish Inhabitance of the territory implemented (put into effect) the Plan pertaining to applicable recommendations.
• The Jewish people exercised their Right to Self-Destermination in the act of proclaiming the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine called Israel.
  
• Imbedded in the proclaimation was the open invitation to all Jews (world-wide) to participate in the creation of a nation based on the intended behavior of Liberty, Justice, and Peace.
• The nation would include the notion that political equity extends to all it citizen (no distinctions of separation).

The second point is that you may read the three essential documents that actually key in the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. And in reviewing those documents, the RoR was not mentioned once.

Finally, Israel has the right to defend itself from Arab League or Arab Palestinian threats to use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

181 was a non-binding resolution.
You cannot exercise your right of self-determination, by stripping away the same right from another group.
The creation of the state of Israel violates THE THREE OATHS.
Arabs in Israel are treated like 2nd class citizens.
And finally, an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

If You only understood what those soundbytes mean You'd see how self-defeating was that position:

Indeed 181 was non-binding, and that's Your problem because it's the 1st time an Arab state is mentioned.
By definition self determination is differentiation of one group from another, see Arab Palestine.
Arabs in Israel are treated better that in any Muslim country, in fact Israel is the BEST Arab country.
Occupational force certainly can claim self defense, with that said the presence of Israeli forces in Palestine is direct function of exercising the sovereignty of the Jewish nation which was vested with this right in intl. law.
In fact denial of exercising this right is an infringement of both international law and US constitution.
Nationals of the Jewish state are both protected and obliged to exercise that power, claiming otherwise is bordering hate speech and incitement to murder.

 

[MJB12741]

Well, I keep bringing up Jews because "Zionists" is nonsense term.

So we agree that the Jewish people are not the cause of the war between Jews and Arabs. Cool.

The conflict is about (nonsense word really meaning Jews) taking away the inalienable rights of Palestinian Arabs, by force. Cool. What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Arabs? What are the inalienable rights of the Palestinian Jews?

And in a previous message you claim that the problem started in 1967. In this post you claim the problem started when the British vacated the area which means 1948. So which is it? 1948 or 1967?

The occupation started in '67. The major violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. The inalienable land rights of Palestinian-Arabs and Palestinian-Jews are the same. Zionists moving into the area at the turn of the last century, do not have those same rights.

You see you Zionists? Before 1948 the Palestinians were a gentle peace loving people who treated the Jewish minority well. And if you don't believe me, just ask Billo.

1929 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia

 

[Sixties Fan]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

 

[Sixties Fan]

IDF says tunnel found leading into northern town dug through hard rock using different methods from Hamas tunnels from Gaza.

View of terror tunnel on Israel-Lebanon border

Operation Northern Shield | Terror tunnel located 40 meters inside Israel

 

[MJB12741]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

 

[Sixties Fan]

This is all pure, official incitement to violence, because the entire story is Jews peacefully visiting the site during the very limited number of visiting hours available to non-Muslims that happen every day except Friday and Saturdays.

(full article online)

Arabic sites continue to incite Muslims over Chanukah celebrations at the Kotel ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

 

[Sixties Fan]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

 

[P F Tinmore]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

Indeed, before about 1850 the Ottomans had a different land system. By WWI there was a lot of land that had not been registered to the new system. This does not mean they did not own the land. It was just that it was not processes yet.

 

[Sixties Fan]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

Indeed, before about 1850 the Ottomans had a different land system. By WWI there was a lot of land that had not been registered to the new system. This does not mean they did not own the land. It was just that it was not processes yet.

Nice try.

Huge Fail.

You are assuming that people who have no money to buy land have actually bought land.


FAIL

 

[P F Tinmore]

A kibbutz called Ein Tzurim was originally established on that land purchased in 1944 but it was destroyed in 1948 when Gush Etzion fell to the invading Jordanian army. Following the Six Day War, a new kibbutz named Rosh Tzurim was established in 1969 on the same site.

As reported on Hebrew language news sites, in 1996 Palestinians from a nearby village claimed ownership of the land and the case went to the district court. In 2016 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that the documents presented by the Palestinians were fake. The petitioners submitted an appeal to the High Court – with their legal counsel provided by the Palestinian Authority. The High Court judges ruled that the district court’s decision should stand.

Not only are BBC audiences highly unlikely to ever hear that story but – despite being obligedunder the terms of its Charter to provide “impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them” – the corporation will doubtless continue to describe that area and others as ‘occupied Palestinian land’.

(full article online)

A story BBC audiences are unlikely to be told

Isn't it interesting how the Palestinians claim it's "their land" when they have no titles or deeds to it whatsoever. And then they accuse Israel of "land theft." Heh Heh!

Interesting, who holds the title deed to a kibbutz?

Those who hold the deed to any of the land bought by Jews from 1850 on, when the Ottoman Empire started selling land.

Would you like to see the deed to the Swamp which became Tel-Aviv?

Indeed, before about 1850 the Ottomans had a different land system. By WWI there was a lot of land that had not been registered to the new system. This does not mean they did not own the land. It was just that it was not processes yet.

Nice try.

Huge Fail.

You are assuming that people who have no money to buy land have actually bought land.


FAIL

I didn't say that.