Explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

[LOki]

It pretty much does, Cupcake.

When a sovereign nation charters an organization with colonizing new territory, that colonial enterprise is still considered undertaken by that nation.

"Palestine" was not a British colony.

Nation-building. You're talking about nation-building.

Financing colonists is not colonizing.

Financing colonists is not colonizing. And South Africa was colonized by the Dutch.

You're only about 200 years off. No bad for you.

No, South Africa was colonized by the Vereenigde Landsche Ge-Oktroyeerde Oostindische Compagnie or "Dutch East India Company" which brought settlers from all over Europe and Asia to the colony.

And from where did the VOC get the charter that authorized the colonization of South Africa?

Was it the European Jewish Empire, Cupcake?

You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists. It's silly really.

It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.

You can call yourself whatever you like, Cupcake. Call yourself Caitlyn; declare yourself Dragon-kin, if you like. Whatever.

There was no charter for colonizing South Africa for the Dutch East India Company, The company's charter was exclusive to Asia. The Cape was a private initiative, originally a way station.

The VOC's charter was not exclusive to Asia, but rather exclusive to the boundaries described by the charter... which included, The Cape.

That charter empowered the VOC to establish colonies...which were under the sovereign dominion of an as-of-yet unidentified Jewish nation the Netherlands.

Sorry about your luck.

The colonizer need not be a state or empire. I have no idea where you got that absurd idea.

Colony: "a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation."

FYI: Absurd: "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false"​

But if you want a charter, the British with the Balfour Declaration provided the charter for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews.

Nation building... not the same as colonization.

Now you are being silly. I don't think it's necessary to beat a dead horse. The Zionists were self proclaimed colonists and it isn't a coincidence that the colonization process was administered by the British Colonial Office.

It's pure coincidence.

 

[montelatici]

No, South Africa was colonized by the Vereenigde Landsche Ge-Oktroyeerde Oostindische Compagnie or "Dutch East India Company" which brought settlers from all over Europe and Asia to the colony.

And from where did the VOC get the charter that authorized the colonization of South Africa?

Was it the European Jewish Empire, Cupcake?

You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists. It's silly really.

It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.

You can call yourself whatever you like, Cupcake. Call yourself Caitlyn; declare yourself Dragon-kin, if you like. Whatever.

There was no charter for colonizing South Africa for the Dutch East India Company, The company's charter was exclusive to Asia. The Cape was a private initiative, originally a way station.

The VOC's charter was not exclusive to Asia, but rather exclusive to the boundaries described by the charter... which included, The Cape.

That charter empowered the VOC to establish colonies...which were under the sovereign dominion of an as-of-yet unidentified Jewish nation the Netherlands.

Sorry about your luck.

The colonizer need not be a state or empire. I have no idea where you got that absurd idea.

Colony: "a group of people who leave their native country to form in a new land a settlement subject to, or connected with, the parent nation."

FYI: Absurd: "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false"​

But if you want a charter, the British with the Balfour Declaration provided the charter for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews.

Nation building... not the same as colonization.

Now you are being silly. I don't think it's necessary to beat a dead horse. The Zionists were self proclaimed colonists and it isn't a coincidence that the colonization process was administered by the British Colonial Office.

It's pure coincidence.

LOL

 

[Phoenall]

What nation were these "colonists" citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

Several European nations, just as the colonists of South Africa were.

Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

A colonial enterprise need not be undertaken by a nation, sweetie.

It pretty much does, Cupcake.

When a sovereign nation charters an organization with colonizing new territory, that colonial enterprise is still considered undertaken by that nation.

But the Zionist colonists were of various European nationalities, as you well know who were facilitated/financed by Britain and the Jewish Colonial Trust.

"Palestine" was not a British colony.

Nation-building. You're talking about nation-building.

Financing colonists is not colonizing.

The British South Africa Company financed the colonization of a large part of Africa and populated the colony with citizens of nearly every nationality known.

Your dog won't hunt I'm afraid.

Financing colonists is not colonizing. And South Africa was colonized by the Dutch.

You're only about 200 years off. No bad for you.

No, South Africa was colonized by the Vereenigde Landsche Ge-Oktroyeerde Oostindische Compagnie or "Dutch East India Company" which brought settlers from all over Europe and Asia to the colony.

You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists. It's silly really.

It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.

OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AGAIN FREDDY BOY is this in your Nazi Jew Hatred book for boys as one of the rules of disinformation

 

[Phoenall]

YES and we know all about that, it was BDS 1930's style aimed at the Nazi regime

 

[Phoenall]

Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

A colonial enterprise need not be undertaken by a nation, sweetie.

It pretty much does, Cupcake.

When a sovereign nation charters an organization with colonizing new territory, that colonial enterprise is still considered undertaken by that nation.

But the Zionist colonists were of various European nationalities, as you well know who were facilitated/financed by Britain and the Jewish Colonial Trust.

"Palestine" was not a British colony.

Nation-building. You're talking about nation-building.

Financing colonists is not colonizing.

The British South Africa Company financed the colonization of a large part of Africa and populated the colony with citizens of nearly every nationality known.

Your dog won't hunt I'm afraid.

Financing colonists is not colonizing. And South Africa was colonized by the Dutch.

You're only about 200 years off. No bad for you.

No, South Africa was colonized by the Vereenigde Landsche Ge-Oktroyeerde Oostindische Compagnie or "Dutch East India Company" which brought settlers from all over Europe and Asia to the colony.

And from where did the VOC get the charter that authorized the colonization of South Africa?

Was it the European Jewish Empire, Cupcake?

You are just making a fool of yourself insisting that Zionists who called themselves colonists were not colonists. It's silly really.

It isn't a runner, trust me sweetie.

You can call yourself whatever you like, Cupcake. Call yourself Caitlyn; declare yourself Dragon-kin, if you like. Whatever.

There was no charter for colonizing South Africa for the Dutch East India Company, The company's charter was exclusive to Asia. The Cape was a private initiative, originally a way station.

The colonizer need not be a state or empire. I have no idea where you got that absurd idea.

But if you want a charter, the British with the Balfour Declaration provided the charter for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

NOPE the Balfour declaration was not a Charter for anything, and stop blaming the British for the arab muslims failings and your own religions failings. The British did not have any authority other than what the terms of the Mandate gave them, and they were not that many

 

[Phoenall]

What nation were these "colonists" citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

Several European nations, just as the colonists of South Africa were.

Europe is not a sovereign nation, Cupcake.

While I admit that Netherlands is in Europe, Europe sent no colonists anywhere... not even to South Africa.

So. What nation were these Jewish "colonists" you refer to citizens of? You neglect to tell. Again. Still.

It was an inside job. The yet to be named state of Israel was created inside Palestine under the wing (or the gun) of the British in the mandate period.

"In the life of the Jewish community, the Jewish Agency occupies a special place in virtue both of its status under article 4 of the Mandate and as a representative organization of world Jewry. Organized in Palestine into some 20 departments corresponding in general to the departments of State in a self-governing country, the Agency concerns itself with every aspect of Jewish economic and social development in Palestine and exercises a decisive influence in major questions of policy and administration, particularly in regard to immigration and agricultural development.

"The Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine) is thus a highly organized and closely knit society which, partly on a basis of communal effort, has created a national life distinctive enough to merit the Royal Commission's title of a State within a State ..." 36/
- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part II 1947-1977 30 June 1979 ​

The Zionists imported settlers from wherever they could find them and created or expand the colonies. In 1947 the yet to be named Israel conscripted settlers into its military and proceeded to cleanse Palestine of its native inhabitants. Over 300,000 Palestinians were dispossessed before Israel's declaration of independence.

The foreign Jewish Agency, that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization, declared Israel's independence. Of the thirty seven people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of settlers. Israel's intended population was recently imported settlers.

Israel is a settler colonial project occupying Palestine.

I take your point. I don't care about the "not born in Palestine" business (it ends up just being meaningless), and I disagree with your use of the term "cleanse," but I take your point. It's a good one... one that I've been considering for a while.

You may have missed that my objection to the term "colonist" is the imperialist baggage attached to the term. Settler-colonialism is a different animal from Imperial-colonialism.

I can agree with settler colonialism with Imperial assistance. LOL

Which did not take place. What did take place was invited migration to make the land fertile and productive by the sovereign owners of Palestine

 

[Humanity]

Of course it tells the truth. It is exactly what he said. Your problem is that you have told so many lies you no longer know what the truth is. Telling lie upon lie upon lie tends to confuse a fellow like you.

But he did not say that did he, anymore than the pope only said KILL THE JEWS AND BURN THEM

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel," he told the Israeli news site NRG.

Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

Netanyahu says no Palestinian state as long as he s prime minister Reuters

No that is just the editors headlines he actually said

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel,"

And you have the audacity to accuse others of cherry picking!?!?

You missed the line from the article which states...

Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

NOPE no cherry picking at all as that was a summation of his reply earlier.

Think you might find that it was an answer to to direct question

 

[Phoenall]

But he did not say that did he, anymore than the pope only said KILL THE JEWS AND BURN THEM

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel," he told the Israeli news site NRG.

Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

Netanyahu says no Palestinian state as long as he s prime minister Reuters

No that is just the editors headlines he actually said

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel,"

And you have the audacity to accuse others of cherry picking!?!?

You missed the line from the article which states...

Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

NOPE no cherry picking at all as that was a summation of his reply earlier.

Think you might find that it was an answer to to direct question

Then you will be able to produce the transcript or video of the questioning ?

 

[quorthon]

So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?

It started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt in 1967.

SDo when did the arab muslim violence and terrorism start then ?

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?

It started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt in 1967.

SDo when did the arab muslim violence and terrorism start then ?

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

Which Arabs?

 

[Phoenall]

So when do you think the "occupation" had been started? Before Christ?

It started when Israeli tanks rolled into Egypt in 1967.

SDo when did the arab muslim violence and terrorism start then ?

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

Which Arabs?

The arabs that migrated and colonised the whole of the M.E of course

 

[Billo_Really]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

 

[toastman]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence.

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.

 

[montelatici]

There was very little violence between the Arab Jews, Arab Christians and the Arab Muslims of Palestine before the Europeans began migrating in the mid 1850s. Any violence was between Palestinian Arabs and Europeans, not Arab Jews unless they allied themselves with the Europeans.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence.

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.

The Shaw Commission observed:

• 
  "In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978

 

[toastman]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence.

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.

The Shaw Commission observed:

• 
  "In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978

1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1517 Hebron attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1834 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[toastman]

There was very little violence between the Arab Jews, Arab Christians and the Arab Muslims of Palestine before the Europeans began migrating in the mid 1850s. Any violence was between Palestinian Arabs and Europeans, not Arab Jews unless they allied themselves with the Europeans.

Can you document this ?

 

[montelatici]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence.

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.

The Shaw Commission observed:

• 
  "In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978

1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1517 Hebron attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1834 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

PF Tinmore documented it earlier linking a UN document. You posted Wiki Hasbara propaganda which the Hasbara team edits.

 

[toastman]

Much earlier than Billo claimed I suppose. I don't know how the war of 47-49 might be non-violent from the Arab side.

If you want to go back that far, the genesis to all the violence in the area, started with the Zionist migration. Before that, there was no recorded major incidence of violence, between the two groups.

This is how ridiculous your logic is:

Before European Jews migrated to the region, there was no major violence between Jews and Arabs (which is false BTW), therefore European migration to the region is the cause of the violence.

The cause of the violence was Arabs massacring Jews on several occasions, way before Israel was even established.

The Shaw Commission observed:

• 
  "In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents.

- See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978

1834 looting of Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1838 Druze attack on Safed - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1517 Hebron attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1834 Hebron massacre - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

PF Tinmore documented it earlier linking a UN document. You posted Wiki Hasbara propaganda which the Hasbara team edits.

What are you, stupid? I posted links to documented attacks. Are you saying they never happened?