Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Because they're way under the salary cap and did a lot of business on the free agent market.
Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay
- Thread starter American_Jihad
- Start date
- Status
It's no surprise that you like the Leftist Jews because they would like to see the Israelis roll over for the Arab and consequently there will be no state of Israel which you would like to see (not that in real life you have any affinity for the Arabs)..
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
- 130
Perhaps not in the ME...But I think Pakistan is a tinderbox and has close to two hundred nukes today, and their polls today, Left, Right or center, they hate Israel more than India.
They are a car bomb away from Regime change...America could not stop a N. Korean bomb and will not stop the ME from arming...Having said that, the Arabs will use small nip and tug wars that aim at winning a War of Attrition, much like America and Russia...Attrition worked on the Crusaders, Turks, French, Brits... if a Real Just peace is not signed....
America is dis-engaging in the ME as it becomes oil independent.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
They love their country as much as you do, so cut the crap!
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
If Pakistan goes after anyone, it's going to be India.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
Let's just clarify a few points here.
This is not "conjecture" on my part, but part of the Partition Plan [Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine]. I rarely dabble in "conjecture."
That is correct. Under GA/RES/181(II), Part I, Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence, approved by the General Assembly and Implemented by the Security Council, as coordinated through the UN Palestine Commission, Arab-Palestinian permission to establish an independent Jewish State was not a prerequisite. (See the Section F quotation, supra.)
The Security Council Resolution (S/RES/242 22 November 1967 - see Map 3243) was contingent upon the Arab Palestinian's:
This was an announcement that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) had not changed their political assessment or position since 1948, before the establishment of the Jewish State. Nor did the HoAP have any intention of changing their position. In effect, the HoAP, made it official, their intention was:
This all but sealed the conviction that, to reduce the magnitude of belligerency, to ensure the sovereign integrity, and to promote conditions conducive to peace, the Occupation should continue.
In 1947, the right of self-determination was not defined. It would not be defined for six decades. Today, your interpretation meets the Article 8, Para 2 b,c,d of the General Assembly Resolution 61/295: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. It is still not an accepted concept, particularly so in the Middle East. One needs only look at the Arab Spring (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen - to name a few) where in every case, conflict erupted.
The Jewish Agency did not establish the Preparatory Steps to Independence, it was the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Jewish Agency merely followed the prerequisite protocols. It was the Arab-Palestinians that declined to participate in the process. When you say that there is "there's no derogation from that," what you need to recognize is that the Arab-Palestinian, by selecting to erupt conflict, denied themselves the opportunity to exercise the "right of self-determination" (shooting themselves in the foot). This is a pattern of behavior (self inflicted wounds) that was to be seen in the character of the Arab-Palestinians many times in the six decades to follow.
Read this passage closely:
To this date, the HoAP has yet to alter their position. At no point has the HoAP declared peace, and end to hostilities, or the desire to live at peace with their Israel neighbors as resolved in A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948. Thus, in Article 6, supra, neither side has reached the "one year after the general close of military operations;" which would normally signal the end of Occupation.
(EPILOG)
Much like we do here, in our discussion, the following description says it all:
The question is, after having said all this, is the mess entirely the fault of any one party? No! Certainly not. I can make a very good finger-pointing case for the HoAP; no question. But the success or failure of Peace Talks rest in the ability for both sides to reach an acceptable compromise resulting in peace. And that requires both sides actually wanting peace; and being tired of conflict.
Most Respectfully,
R
Let's just clarify a few points here.
(COMMENT)
This is not "conjecture" on my part, but part of the Partition Plan [Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine]. I rarely dabble in "conjecture."
PART I - Future constitution and government of Palestine said:
(COMMENT)
That is correct. Under GA/RES/181(II), Part I, Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence, approved by the General Assembly and Implemented by the Security Council, as coordinated through the UN Palestine Commission, Arab-Palestinian permission to establish an independent Jewish State was not a prerequisite. (See the Section F quotation, supra.)
The Security Council Resolution (S/RES/242 22 November 1967 - see Map 3243) was contingent upon the Arab Palestinian's:
- Termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
- Acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel;
- Israeli right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
- Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.
- Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
- Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
- The partition of Palestine in 1947, and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right in their homeland, and were inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.
- The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void.
The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom”. The Subsequent communication of 6 February to the Secretary-General from the representative of the Arab Higher Committee set forth the following conclusions of the Arab Higher Committee Delegation: said:
SPECIAL NOTE: Again, look at the timeline.
Notice that the HoAP established and consolidated hostile activities before the 1967 Occupation. The impression you consistently give is that the "Occupation" is the cause of hostilities. That is entirely wrong. The HoAP's own record clearly shows an intention to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, financing, and encourage asymmetric operations (Jihadist/Fedayeen) and the establishment of installations or training camps, in preparation for guerrilla action intended to target the State of Israel and their citizens.
Notice that the HoAP established and consolidated hostile activities before the 1967 Occupation. The impression you consistently give is that the "Occupation" is the cause of hostilities. That is entirely wrong. The HoAP's own record clearly shows an intention to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, financing, and encourage asymmetric operations (Jihadist/Fedayeen) and the establishment of installations or training camps, in preparation for guerrilla action intended to target the State of Israel and their citizens.
This was an announcement that the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) had not changed their political assessment or position since 1948, before the establishment of the Jewish State. Nor did the HoAP have any intention of changing their position. In effect, the HoAP, made it official, their intention was:
- Not to termination of all claims or states of belligerency;
- Not to acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel;
- Not to allow Israel the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
This all but sealed the conviction that, to reduce the magnitude of belligerency, to ensure the sovereign integrity, and to promote conditions conducive to peace, the Occupation should continue.
(COMMENT)
In 1947, the right of self-determination was not defined. It would not be defined for six decades. Today, your interpretation meets the Article 8, Para 2 b,c,d of the General Assembly Resolution 61/295: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. It is still not an accepted concept, particularly so in the Middle East. One needs only look at the Arab Spring (Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen - to name a few) where in every case, conflict erupted.
The Jewish Agency did not establish the Preparatory Steps to Independence, it was the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Jewish Agency merely followed the prerequisite protocols. It was the Arab-Palestinians that declined to participate in the process. When you say that there is "there's no derogation from that," what you need to recognize is that the Arab-Palestinian, by selecting to erupt conflict, denied themselves the opportunity to exercise the "right of self-determination" (shooting themselves in the foot). This is a pattern of behavior (self inflicted wounds) that was to be seen in the character of the Arab-Palestinians many times in the six decades to follow.
(COMMENT)
Read this passage closely:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War said:
To this date, the HoAP has yet to alter their position. At no point has the HoAP declared peace, and end to hostilities, or the desire to live at peace with their Israel neighbors as resolved in A/RES/194 (III) 11 December 1948. Thus, in Article 6, supra, neither side has reached the "one year after the general close of military operations;" which would normally signal the end of Occupation.
(EPILOG)
Much like we do here, in our discussion, the following description says it all:
John Kerry Makes Mideast Trip To Reignite Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks - By JOSEF FEDERMAN 11/05/13 AP Wire said:
The question is, after having said all this, is the mess entirely the fault of any one party? No! Certainly not. I can make a very good finger-pointing case for the HoAP; no question. But the success or failure of Peace Talks rest in the ability for both sides to reach an acceptable compromise resulting in peace. And that requires both sides actually wanting peace; and being tired of conflict.
Most Respectfully,
R
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
181 was nothing more than a recommendation. It carried no legal weight. It was shot down in the UNSC. And will you stop posting it's contents? I've read every word of 181 more than once, I know what it say's. There's no need to remind me of it's contents. This is doing nothing but making these posts very long and difficult to respond to.
It was not implemented by the UNSC. I posted the applicable reference from the UN's own website stating this. The UNSC refused to act on it and consequently, this "recommendation", died there.
Why do you keep insisting the opposite?
You left off one important requirement, which was the removal of all military forces from the occupied territories. This was the main reason for 242, so I find it interesting, you would leave that part out.
Don't you dare quote the Charter on me, in light of all the resolutions Israel is in violation of.
Then how do you explain when they don't, Israel still responds with tanks and bombs?
What does erecting street lights have to do with terrorism or a threat to Israeli security?
This is a lie!
In 2006, Hamas issued a manifesto accepting a two-state solution along the '67 borders...
...which Israel has rejected.
The "occupation" is considered illegal by every nation on earth and has been codified as such in several UN resolutions and rulings by the ICJ.
There is no legal justification for Israel to maintain the occupation.
That's bullshit!
This is getting ridiculous.
The right to self-determination is irrefutable.
No they didn't! They unilaterally declared themselves a nation in an area where they only owned 7% of the land.
Then jewish terrorist groups like Irgun went to work and drove out over 700,000 indigenous arabs.
How can you not call that "right" deprivation?
You got that backwards! The reason for the conflict was to ensure the "rights" of the indigenous arab population. Which means, there would not have been any conflict, if Zionists would have ensured those rights from the beginning.
242 made it clear Israel was to remove all it's forces from the occupied territories. That is a binding resolution Israel has chosen not to honor.
See above. I'm getting sick of repeating the same god-damn point that the occupation is illegal according to every fucking nation on the planet!
All that is being asked is that Israel comply with international law. And to date, they haven't. You're god-damn lucky I'm not President, because I would've sent the marines in a long time ago into the OPT and drive every god-damn Israeli back to Israel.
Kerry wanted to force the Palestinian's back to the peace process unconditionally, which is just what the Israeli's want. Israel wants to hold all the cards and call all the shots. There is no way an agreement mutually beneficial to both sides could be achieved under those conditions.
It requires the Israeli's ending the occupation and complying with international law.
Kondor3
Cafeteria Centrist
The Israelis have seized land which once belonged to the Hebrew tribes of antiquity, most recently formerly owned by the Muslim-Arab Palestinians of the region, and all the UN Resolutions in the world and all the legal pissing and moaning in the world will not make the Israelis give them back.
Rather than spin our wheels over UN resolutions and international law over and over and over and over and over again ad infinitum ad nauseum, we need to face the very real prospect that these conquered lands, achieved after the Jordanians foolishly joined the rest of their Arab kindred in the 1967 War, are not going to revert to Arab control in the foreseeable future.
Israel will continue to squeeze more and more Palestinians off the lands of Rump Palestine (that small and quickly shrinking portion of Old Palestine that is still under Arab control) until there is nothing left and all the Palestinians have fled across the borders to Jordan and Lebanon. The Palestinians' own propaganda maps tell us this much, and one does not have to be a scholar with credentials in international political science to project the outcome.
The Arabs cannot stop Israel from doing what it wants, now that virtually all of the Arab countries surrounding Israel are in upheaval and tatters and in no position to make even a half-hearted half-assed effort at war-making against Israel.
The UN - being the toothless old ladies' debating society that it is - is not going to stop Israel.
NATO - being influenced in large-part by countries friendly towards Israel - will not stop it.
The West in general - suffering from Holocaust Guilt and no small amount of secret admiration for the Israelis for kicking ass as well as they have, will not stop it.
The US, specifically, most friendly of all to Israel, will not stop it, the present luke-warm Administration's diffidence notwithstanding.
The truth of the matter is, much of the world (outside the domain of Islam, anyway) either are (a) indifferent, (b) were put-off by Palestinian terrorism (internal and external), (c) will cluck their tongues and serve-up a few words of censure for appearances' sake, or (d) will secretly be glad to see the end of the Palestinian crazies as an organized pseudo-polity.
All our attempts at legitimizing or de-legitimizing don't mean bopkess in the Real World.
And, in the Real World, there's no snowball's-chance-in-hell that the Israelis are gonna give up the Golan or ultimate and overarching control of the West Bank and Gaza.
The Israelis have spent decades encroaching upon the West Bank because that is what most threatens Jerusalem and the bulk of Israeli-controlled lands.
When they have finished with the West Bank (and they're not that far away from their goal now), they'll turn their attention to Gaza.
And The West is going to accept that total assimilation of the West Bank as a fait accompli, after putting on a fine show of clucking their own tongues and wagging their fingers, then going back behind closed doors and laughing at the pathetic Arab clowns who thought they could resist a reborn Israel backed (openly and covertly) by most of The West.
Rather than spending endless months haranguing the legalese for the ten-thousandth time, we might more profitably contemplate the fate of the Palestinians and the reshaping of both Jordan and Lebanon as the remainder of the Palestinians still in the West Bank and Gaza continue to flow into Jordan and Lebanon, to rejoin the millions of their kinsmen already there.
It's gonna be one helluva humanitarian-relief logistics mess, but I suspect we'll get it sorted.
Of course, the Israelis will be ponying-up part of the cost of Wergeld and relief and relocation money and logistics in support of such relief, but, once done, they'll have their spiritual and ancestral homeland back under their own control, in toto, for the first time in a couple of thousand years.
Peace Talks, Round 100, will die a speedy and ignoble death, as so many of the previous ones have.
Both sides want the land.
Only one side can have it.
The side with all the muscle is going to win.
That is why 'Israel is Here to Stay'.
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #849
How Israel Makes the World a Safer Place
November 6, 2013 By Ari Lieberman
On June 7, 1981 Israel provided the world with a lesson on how to deal with international pariahs. Its fighter jets, F-15s and F-16s, swooped over Iraqi airspace and with extreme precision using conventional iron bombs, destroyed a heavily defended Iraqi nuclear facility near Baghdad. At the time, many commentators, media outlets and politicians condemned Israel for its “aggression.” Over time however, many of those very same commentators came to recognize precocity of Israel’s Osirak operation and it is now well accepted that Israel’s preventive use of force then, thwarted a greater conflagration.
In 2007, Israeli intelligence officials approached the United States with incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad, with the assistance of North Korea and Iran, was in the final stages of completing an atom bomb facility modeled after a North KoreaÂ’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor. The United States, already embroiled in two unpopular Middle-Eastern wars vacillated, unsure on how to proceed.
Israel, a nation that sits within the belly of the beast, did not possess the luxury of waiting, contemplating or “assessing” and acted resolutely. On September 6, 2007, Israeli warplanes attacked and destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear complex turning the WMD plant into an expensive heap of scrap metal.
...
It has recently become fashionable among various elitist and radical leftist quarters to criticize the Jewish State on everything ranging from its counter-insurgency operations to its development of barren land in Judea & Samaria. But those radicals should take heed that the world would be a much more volatile place without Israel acting as the point man against Islamic fundamentalism and WMD proliferation. Rather than unwarranted and relentless criticism, a simple “thank you” would suffice.
How Israel Makes the World a Safer Place | FrontPage Magazine
November 6, 2013 By Ari Lieberman
On June 7, 1981 Israel provided the world with a lesson on how to deal with international pariahs. Its fighter jets, F-15s and F-16s, swooped over Iraqi airspace and with extreme precision using conventional iron bombs, destroyed a heavily defended Iraqi nuclear facility near Baghdad. At the time, many commentators, media outlets and politicians condemned Israel for its “aggression.” Over time however, many of those very same commentators came to recognize precocity of Israel’s Osirak operation and it is now well accepted that Israel’s preventive use of force then, thwarted a greater conflagration.
In 2007, Israeli intelligence officials approached the United States with incontrovertible proof that Bashar Assad, with the assistance of North Korea and Iran, was in the final stages of completing an atom bomb facility modeled after a North KoreaÂ’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor. The United States, already embroiled in two unpopular Middle-Eastern wars vacillated, unsure on how to proceed.
Israel, a nation that sits within the belly of the beast, did not possess the luxury of waiting, contemplating or “assessing” and acted resolutely. On September 6, 2007, Israeli warplanes attacked and destroyed Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear complex turning the WMD plant into an expensive heap of scrap metal.
...
It has recently become fashionable among various elitist and radical leftist quarters to criticize the Jewish State on everything ranging from its counter-insurgency operations to its development of barren land in Judea & Samaria. But those radicals should take heed that the world would be a much more volatile place without Israel acting as the point man against Islamic fundamentalism and WMD proliferation. Rather than unwarranted and relentless criticism, a simple “thank you” would suffice.
How Israel Makes the World a Safer Place | FrontPage Magazine
RoccoR
Gold Member
Kondor3, et al,
I think everyone understood that the establishment of settlements in the OtP was going to be heartburn. While, as war crimes good, it is one of the most minor of infractions (being nonviolent and non-lethal), it is the basis for some serious propaganda; as it is technically a violation of international law; even though nothing on the magnitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
I agree that, at some point (maybe now, maybe later) that from a practical standpoint, both the UNGA and the UNSC Resolutions become overtaken by events and become impractical to apply. Neither side (Israeli or Palestinian) have any real intention of using them as a basis for future peaceful solutions.
Both sides have violated some many international protocols and intentions; that you could write an encyclopedia on just that aspect.
I must disagree (in part) with the concept that the territories "are not going to revert to Arab control." While there are a number of different possible outcomes, one that we cannot discount out of hand is the possibility of a two-state solution in which the Arabs create a viable smaller state under the current Declaration of Independence for the State of Palestine.
Another aspect that keeps being injected is the "ancient ties" and the "tenured residency" which each side claims; neither of which is valid in terms of "sovereign control." While it is nice history to know, none of the shoes on the ground today are any more indigenous then any other; with the rare exception for a few centenarians. And claims dating back multiple millennium simply have no standing.
From an international standpoint, the community should step back and let the Israelis and Arab-Palestinians resolve their own issues (fight it out if they must). The State of Palestine is near the edge of toppling as any state can be without being called a failed state. Both Gaza and the West Bank at totally beggar societies; more interested in conflict than prosperous development; and regional parasites.
Most Respectfully,
R
I think everyone understood that the establishment of settlements in the OtP was going to be heartburn. While, as war crimes good, it is one of the most minor of infractions (being nonviolent and non-lethal), it is the basis for some serious propaganda; as it is technically a violation of international law; even though nothing on the magnitude of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
(COMMENT)
I agree that, at some point (maybe now, maybe later) that from a practical standpoint, both the UNGA and the UNSC Resolutions become overtaken by events and become impractical to apply. Neither side (Israeli or Palestinian) have any real intention of using them as a basis for future peaceful solutions.
Both sides have violated some many international protocols and intentions; that you could write an encyclopedia on just that aspect.
I must disagree (in part) with the concept that the territories "are not going to revert to Arab control." While there are a number of different possible outcomes, one that we cannot discount out of hand is the possibility of a two-state solution in which the Arabs create a viable smaller state under the current Declaration of Independence for the State of Palestine.
Another aspect that keeps being injected is the "ancient ties" and the "tenured residency" which each side claims; neither of which is valid in terms of "sovereign control." While it is nice history to know, none of the shoes on the ground today are any more indigenous then any other; with the rare exception for a few centenarians. And claims dating back multiple millennium simply have no standing.
From an international standpoint, the community should step back and let the Israelis and Arab-Palestinians resolve their own issues (fight it out if they must). The State of Palestine is near the edge of toppling as any state can be without being called a failed state. Both Gaza and the West Bank at totally beggar societies; more interested in conflict than prosperous development; and regional parasites.
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
So basically, what you're saying is, that it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
Who said that?
You may not agree with what he said; hell I don't always agree with what he says. BUT, don't inject a line of thought totally out of context. No one mentioned the Munich Agreement or the "Peace in our Time" compromise by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. You're mixing apples and oranges again.
Most Respectfully,
R
Who said that?
(COMMENT)
You may not agree with what he said; hell I don't always agree with what he says. BUT, don't inject a line of thought totally out of context. No one mentioned the Munich Agreement or the "Peace in our Time" compromise by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. You're mixing apples and oranges again.
Most Respectfully,
R
Snouter
Can You Smell Me
- Aug 3, 2013
- 13,666
- 4,995
- 350
Besides the lies in the article in general, this is an important example of how clever it is to use of the word "elitist" and why anyone, Alex Jones for example, who uses it in the context of anything other than that describing a zionist and zionism in general is a liar. Zionism has pretty much fucked the world up beyond repair. That is not to say Islam or other ridiculous religions are not bad and dangerous. They too are hilariously stupid and primitive, just like Judaism. But more importantly, it is saying that Talmudism, Old Testamentism and the raced-based association involved is the most pernicious crime syndicate in world history.
Last edited:
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
No I'm not! The comparison is a valid one. For the very reason Hitler tried to annex Poland, is the very reason it is outlawed today. You cannot acquire land by force. That's what Hitler tried to do. That's why it is illegal today. That's why it's illegal for Israel to do it to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights and Gaza.
So anyone saying it is okay to do so, is saying it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Billo_Really, et al,
Now you've made a point.
If your point is: "You cannot acquire land by force." Then say that. Don't wrap it in an analogy that is not applicable.
In 1939, the Polish people (occupied) were not a political or military and security threat to Germany (the occupation force). The Polish were not on a military build-up and were not making threats to Germany. The Polish were not politically attacking Germany as an illegal state.
In contrast to the Polish analogy:
There is no comparison.
Two entirely different case studies.
Most Respectfully,
R
Now you've made a point.
(COMMENT)
If your point is: "You cannot acquire land by force." Then say that. Don't wrap it in an analogy that is not applicable.
- BTW: Does your "You cannot acquire land by force" point work both ways? Equally applicable to the Hostile Arab-Palestinians, as well as, the Israelis?
In 1939, the Polish people (occupied) were not a political or military and security threat to Germany (the occupation force). The Polish were not on a military build-up and were not making threats to Germany. The Polish were not politically attacking Germany as an illegal state.
In contrast to the Polish analogy:
- In 1964 (three years before occupation) the Arab-Palestinian wrote the Palestine National Charter (al- Mithaq al-kawmee al-Philistini) The Arab-Palestinian Council considers the establishment of the state of Israel a continuous aggression on the land and people of Palestine (all the territory formerly under Mandate) and declared right of the Palestinian people to struggle for the liberation of their homeland (Jihadist Fedayeen).
- In 1966 (a year before occupation) the Arab-Palestinian Council establish the Liberation Army, to liberate Palestine and unified the Guerilla factions, under the framework of the PLO.
There is no comparison.
- In the case of the Polish, the Germans were the aggressor and invaded to occupy a peaceful nation.
- In the case of the Palestinians, the Palestinians were the hostile party, and were occupied, for among other reasons, to maintain the integrity and security of the sovereignty that is Israel.
Two entirely different case studies.
Most Respectfully,
R
Kondor3
Cafeteria Centrist
Nope.
Hitler's people did not have a 2000-year-old claim to the place, and Hitler's people already had a land to live in, before they launched their aggression.
The Jews DO have a 2000-year-old claim to the place, and the Jews do NOT have another land to live-in, if they lose their Struggle.
Apples and oranges.
Besides... I'm not commenting upon Legality or Ethics or Morality here.
I'm merely showing you the future in this context.
One that probably has a 9-out-of-10 chance of materializing.
For the reasons I've already outlined.
Legality and Ethics and Morality and their Historical Equivalents (real and otherwise)?
I said nothing about Legality and Ethics and Morality in my Post No. 848, one way or another, never mind conjuring-up (or soliciting) faux historical equivalencies.
We are talking about Control of Land and we are talking about National Survival here.
Where such life-and-death (of a People) matters are concerned, Legality and Ethics and Morality are far less important than Life, in the final analysis.
You have to be alive to be concerned about Legality and Ethics and Morality.
That is a cold, hard truth of the world.
Legality and Ethics and Morality may actually have little or nothing to do with the way this has been unfolding and the way this is going to continue to unfold as we near the End-Game in the Struggle for Palestine.
If you believe that I am wrong concerning the likely continued Inaction of the UNSC or NATO or the US, or if you have some insight into present Arab military capabilities that have eluded the rest of us, feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Last edited:
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
You cannot acquire land by force. That's what Hitler tried to do and the world community has made that illegal since. And now, Israel is trying to do the same thing and it ain't gonna happen!
Catch the clue, you fucking idiot, after 47 years, there is still not a single country on this planet that recognizes Israel's right to that land.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
The Germans were the aggressor and invaded a peaceful nation.
So were the Zionists who invaded Palestine with their apartheid and racist policies. They also brought with them jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.
There was no recorded incidents of major violence in that area, until the Zionists showed up. Which means, Zionists were the aggressors.
Kondor3
Cafeteria Centrist
Sure you can.
Ask the Chinese, regarding Tibet.
Or the Vietnamese, regarding their South.
Or the Israelis, regarding Palestine.
Or a dozen other examples in recent decades.
There it is again, this obsession over Legality.
I have already addressed this.
You are welcome to demonstrate the power(s) that will intervene and enforce your will, and your rationale for believing that they will intervene, at your discretion.
My, my, my... such temper and language...
I am well-aware of the so-called International Legalities attending the situation; in the main and at-large if not in picayune detail; so, in truth, I DO have a clue, in your context.
You have yet to reach the conclusion that I have long-since reached: When the survival of a nation or people are at stake - a people who have nowhere else to go - and when that people are backed (both overtly and covertly, in whole and in part) by very powerful and influential nation-friends - all the so-called International Legalities in the world don't mean shit.
When you develop a realistic and pragmatic sense of the way the world works, you will come to understand this.
You can rail against this until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change a thing.
Last edited:
pbel
Gold Member
- Feb 26, 2012
- 5,653
- 449
- 130
Sure you can.
Ask the Chinese, regarding Tibet.
Or the Vietnamese, regarding their South.
Or the Israelis, regarding Palestine.
Or a dozen other examples in recent decades.
There it is again, this obsession over Legality.
I have already addressed this.
You are welcome to demonstrate the power(s) that will intervene and enforce your will, and your rationale for believing that they will intervene, at your discretion.
My, my, my... such temper and language...
I am well-aware of the so-called International Legalities attending the situation; in the main and at-large if not in picayune detail; so, in truth, I DO have a clue, in your context.
You have yet to reach the conclusion that I have long-since reached: When the survival of a nation or people are at stake - a people who have nowhere else to go - and when that people are backed (both overtly and covertly, in whole and in part) by very powerful and influential nation-friends - all the so-called International Legalities in the world don't mean shit.
When you develop a realistic and pragmatic sense of the way the world works, you will come to understand this.
You can rail against this until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change a thing.
Again, your bravado reflected by the present Israeli leaders is dangerous to the Israeli state...sure you can kick ass like America did in Afghanistan and Iraq and leave with your tail hanging low. Israel and America have Technological advantages but you can't occupy...And the greater danger today and certainly in the near future, Rocket Wars and dirty Bombs.
No Winners...Time favors the Demography of numbers. The Chinese have them, The Vietnamese had them...Can you name anyone who took a hostile take over that is outnumbered 5 million verses 400 hundred million Arabs and another billion Muslims?
Your bravado like Israel's will diminish in time. No military power lasts forever.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Trump finally got his birthday parade. It didn't look like he had as much fun as he expected.- Started by BULLDOG
- Replies: 12
-
-
-
'Trump Is A King!' Say People Freely Protesting In A Free Country
- Started by Votto
- Replies: 9
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
To fix our country, we need a strong leader willing to break the rules?- Latest: Toddsterpatriot
