Freed Terrorist Killed American Citizen, US 'Concerned'

[P F Tinmore]

Tell us Paul, how can you talk with your foot in your mouth? Amazing!

Can you prove any of that to be true?

It's been proved to you countless times. You just want to play little games. Wake up and smell the armpits.

That's what I thought. You don't have jack.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

Yes, Israel started out, parked in the areas defined in GA/RES/181(II) for the Jewish State. Arab conflict, initiated by Arabs, altered that paradigm.

Horsefeathers.

Tell us Paul, how can you talk with your foot in your mouth? Amazing!

Can you prove any of that to be true?

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

Tell us Paul, how can you talk with your foot in your mouth? Amazing!

Can you prove any of that to be true?

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

It appears tinmore has perfected the art of "quibbling techniques".

 

[toastman]

Can you prove any of that to be true?

It's been proved to you countless times. You just want to play little games. Wake up and smell the armpits.

That's what I thought. You don't have jack.

But you have something ??

You never have anything but lies and propaganda

 

[P F Tinmore]

It's been proved to you countless times. You just want to play little games. Wake up and smell the armpits.

That's what I thought. You don't have jack.

But you have something ??

You never have anything but lies and propaganda

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[toastman]

That's what I thought. You don't have jack.

But you have something ??

You never have anything but lies and propaganda

Do you have any proof of that?

Sure. Go read your post history .

Speaking of proof, you never provide any when making your claims

 

[Bloodrock44]

That's what I thought. You don't have jack.

But you have something ??

You never have anything but lies and propaganda

Do you have any proof of that?

You just go round and round in circles without ever proving a point. We should call you Dizzy.

 

[toastman]

But you have something ??

You never have anything but lies and propaganda

Do you have any proof of that?

You just go round and round in circles without ever proving a point. We should call you Dizzy.

Exactly !!

Dizzy is a good name, but I would call him pinnochio

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.

Tell us Paul, how can you talk with your foot in your mouth? Amazing!

Can you prove any of that to be true?

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League (1947)


“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder (1948)


“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”
- Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister (1949)

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Defending the Palestinian Arabs, my ass !

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

Show me a link that says Israel was created in Palestine by the force of arms ??
They declared Independence in the land allotted to them in the partition plan, and their declaration was recognized globally. They had EVERY right to be there and EVERY right to create their state there. It's not their fault the Arabs refused the partition plan because of greed

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.

(SUBTERFUGE)

Israel, Declared Independence (their right of self-determination) under the limitations set forth in the Partition Plan by the General Assembly; and the Arab League immediately attacked.

Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.

The results of the Arab inspired combat were not static; lines moved as the outcome of each exchange was determined.

Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

This statement makes no sense and is completely irrelevant to Rocco's comment

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

As is with many of our discussions, the timeline is juxtaposed in reverse order. So that my commentary may be better understood, I've rearranged this.

Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Agency (originally a generic term for a yet to be developed entity) was a creation of the Allied Powers and not the World Zionist Organization (WZO).

Early on, the newly forming "Administration of Palestine" (that being the UK as Mandatory) understood that if it were to put into effect the Balfour Declaration, the Mandatory would need a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating on matters that would impact the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the interests of the Jewish in, or immigrating to, the Territory under Mandate. This public body, generically called the "Jewish Agency," was formally established in the Mandate for Palestine (Article 4). To ensure that this newly envisioned entity generically called the "Jewish Agency" had both legal standing (as established by the Mandate) and the willing cooperation and recognition from all Jews (both indigenous and immigrant) assisting in the establishment of the Jewish National Home, Article 4 required it to be formally recognized and sanctioned by the WZO, which formally adopted the generic name from the Mandate language; originally taken from the San Remo Convention (1920).

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

" These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."​

SOURCE: The Colonial Office to the Palestine Arab Delegation

I cite the correspondence to demonstrate that an ongoing dialog between the Mandatory (UK), the Arabs and the Jewish community was in-progress even before the Mandate was formally published (August 1922) and enacted.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.

(COMMENT)

Well, I made the comment relative to --- there are people who observe the facts and make that interpretation. In fact, the new King of Jordan sent a cable to the Secretary General that said, in part, Jordanian forces were "compelled to enter Palestine to protect unarmed Arabs against massacres similar to those of Deir Yasin." This may not be entirely true and opens a door to another saga.

(Remember: In retaliation for Deir Yassin massacre, Arabs militia killed between 75 - 80 Jewish medical personnel and wounded civilians and soldiers as well as fighters guarding the convoy on their way to Hadassah hospital. The Deir Yassin event had already been avenged.)​

As is well known, Jewish Agency (Golda Meir) meet secretly with Abdullah I of Jordan on at least two occasions. HM (Abdullah I) thought it was to Jordan's advantage that the
Partition Plan, recommended by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), would open the door for Jordan to annex the portion of the Plan ear marked as the "Arab State." HM (Abdullah I) supported partition.

On the day of Independence the Egyptian attack from the south into Israel (one brigade driving up the coast and two brigades on a line north through Beershaba towards Hebron), the Lebanese southeast and Syrians attack from the North (with brigades crossing above and below the Sea of Galilee) into Israel, the Iraqi attack from the west into Israel (on a line towards Jenin), and the Jordanians attack Jerusalem.

The line of attacks do not coincide with the refugee displacement. The refugees generally followed a reverse flow, originating from the defensive advance and counterattacks of Israeli Forces. This would leave a less hostile environment to the rear of Israeli forces on-line at the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA).

Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

Maybe, and maybe not. The Arab League was not then and is not now known to follow international law except when, after losing a conflict, it is in their favor. The West Bank of the Jordan was occupied by forces of HM (Abdullah I) and later annexed, consistent with secret agreements with the Jewish leadership made before the outbreak of hostilities. The Gaza Strip fell under the control of Egypt. The Palestinians gained nothing either from the Arab side of the conflict or the Israeli side. In fact, based on the refugee columns, they lost considerably. (An outcome that was to be repeated again and again.)

Legal status is a relative term that implies some means of enforcement, which the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) do not have. While it has some recognized convention, it is only relevant if it can be a reality. The entire idea that "Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit," is something that will not likely ever be realized as the domain of an HoAP Mufti. And the concept that "Palestine (defined by the HoAP with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate) as an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, an integral part of the Arab nation has been overtaken by events, largely of the HoAP and Arab League's making. With the exception of some minor adjustments, it is not a reality that any of us are likely to see in our lifetime. BUT, the leech-like hold to these incredible ideas only serves to hold the HoAP hostage by their own hand.

Today, the are Peace Talks underway. And it serves both sides that they be successful in some way. Though peace, the entire Idea behind the economic development and stability in the region, can be achieved. It can benefit both sides of the equation; but only if each side makes a reasonable effort towards the goal. Whatever happened nine, six, or four decades ago has to be set aside to reach a higher order in society and the coexistence between the cultures. Compromises and sacrifices have to be made on both sides if they are both to receive a benefit for a benefit.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

There are actually some that believe the Arab Armies did not attack; but instead were defending the Arab Palestinian right to self-determination.

This is the most accurate scenario that I have found. If you look at the actual facts you will find that the Arab armies entered Palestine and fought Israeli forces in Palestine. They went into Palestine to defend the Palestinians who were being pushed off their own land.



Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency (that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization) and was imposed on Palestine by the force of arms. This was with the virtual unanimous opposition of the native population.



Lines may move but lines have no legal status.

(COMMENT)

The Arabs Palestinians sought the immediate creation of an independent (State of) Palestine west of the Jordan River on the termination of the Mandate. This is a position they held then and which some still hold now.

The request for proof (argument of sufficient evidence to establish the truth of the events) is a matter of history. The use of "quibbling techniques" by the Arab Palestinian, is evidence that they argue over unimportant things in an attempt to make petty objections of that which is already historical fact.

Today, the outcome of those events has little to do with the emergence of a solution today. They have been overtaken by events.

Most Respectfully,
R

Show me a link that says Israel was created in Palestine by the force of arms ??
They declared Independence in the land allotted to them in the partition plan, and their declaration was recognized globally. They had EVERY right to be there and EVERY right to create their state there. It's not their fault the Arabs refused the partition plan because of greed

How many do you want?

At 4 A.M. on April 25, 1948, almost three weeks before the termination of the British mandate over Palestine, Jaffa was subjected to an intensifying barrage of concentrated mortar bombing from Tel Aviv, Bat Yam and Agro-Bank. I twice risked my life and that of my family by attempting to escape in my car with my pregnant wife and 2-year-old daughter. Halfway out of the city, I had to turn back and return to the center of town.

In the afternoon a group of us called the district commissioner to ask if the British administration had decided to abandon the city. The district commissioner denied that, and at his request the Army dispatched three tanks at about 5 P.M., which rolled through the main streets of Jaffa. However, panic was so intense and irreversible that almost 90 percent of Jaffa's population of 80,000 escaped in the next 24 hours.

The Panic That Gripped Jaffa in April 1948 - NYTimes.com

In the process of “Judaizing” Palestine, numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular attacks on a Christian target, on May 17, 1948, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with about 100 mortar rounds—launched by Zionist forces from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine Fathers on Mount Zion. The bombardment also damaged St. Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s Convent, and their appended churches, their two elementary and seminary schools, as well as their libraries, killing eight people and wounding 120.

Forgotten Christians | The American Conservative

 

[toastman]

LOL None of those say what you claim. You're just cherry picking specific incident where there was a war between the Palestinian Arabs and Jews. Why don't you post anything about Jewish towns getting bombarded ??
Anyway, as usual , you proved nothing

Israel had EVERY right to create a state in the land allotted to her in the Partition Plan. That land was not inside Palestine, since Palestine was just a territory with no borders.

 

[toastman]

And where the **** did you pull up those sources ?? I've never heard of them before.