Hamas polices border after IDF kills man

[toomuchtime_]

It is not just what some Jews thought. It was becoming known that the Zionists planned to take over Palestine. This was confirmed when Britain landed with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

All of the Palestinians actions were to defend their country from this planned takeover.

You claim there is no border. So Israel, by your logic, is free to occupy settle and control any land that is NOT part of a Sovereign Nation State. Because you see, Israel IS a Sovereign Nation State.

Not so.

Everything inside Israel's borders is theirs. Everything that is not is not.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Palestine is a state according to the Palestinians. They don't need Israel's recognition or approval.

In other words, according to you, Palestine is a state of mind.

 

[georgephillip]

So it seems ok to you that the Arabs were intolerant of all Jews because they believed some Jews wanted all the land? They were intolerant of all Jews because of what some Jews thought?

It is silly and it isn't even true. Arab anti semitism dates back to the founding of Islam and was codified in the legal systems of all the countries in the greater ME, and Arab pogroms, massacres of Jews, began (first recorded) in the 11th century, right in the middle of the Golden Age of Islam, lauded for its culture of tolerance, and continued right down into the mid 20th century.

The intolerance and violence that greeted the Jews who moved to Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th century was not based on what some Arabs may have believed some Jews were thinking but was just a continuation of hostile attitudes and violent behaviors toward Jews that had characterized Arab cultures for centuries. The massacres of Jews in the 1920's wasn't about nationalism, they were incited by false rumors that the Jews were attacking al Aksa, and the second intifada was also precipitated by the false rumor that Jews were attacking al Aksa. A thousand years ago Arabs massacred Jews because they were considered enemies of Islam and in 2000 Arabs massacred Jews because they were called enemies of Islam. This intolerant and violent behavior toward Jews in a core value in Arab cultures and it is from this that all the problems of the region spring and it is this that makes negotiated settlements impossible.

It is not just what some Jews thought. It was becoming known that the Zionists planned to take over Palestine. This was confirmed when Britain landed with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

All of the Palestinians actions were to defend their country from this planned takeover.

It's this kind of twisted, hate filled, xenophobic thinking about Jews that led to all the troubles in the region. How could the Arabs (which Arabs?) have known what the Zionists planned to do when there was no agreement among the early Zionists? There were nearly as many proposals as there were settlers. Some wanted a new Jewish state with the borders of the kingdom of David, which would have taken them all the way into Iraq, and some would have been content with a measure of autonomous Jewish government under British/League of Nations rule, and before that under Ottoman rule. The consensus that emerged, that the Jews must have a sovereign state of their own in the region, was forged in the fire of Arab intolerance of Jews and the violence it produced and the failure of the British to control it and to live up to their obligation under the Mandate to establish a Jewish homeland, not necessarily a state.

The Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Haifa in the 1920's had the same root cause, almost the exact precipitating cause, as the Araqb massacres of Jews in Granada and Cordoba in the 11th century, Arab intolerance of Jews, and it is just as much a core value of Arab culture today, as you demonstrate, as it was a thousand years ago.

"The 1066 Granada massacre took place on 30 December 1066 (9 Tevet 4827),[86] when a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. 'More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day.'

"According to historian Bernard Lewis, the massacre - in Muslim narrative - is 'usually ascribed to a reaction among the Muslim population against a powerful and ostentatious Jewish vizier.' Muslims' sentiments of resentments of refusal of Jews to be subjugated by Muslims as Dhimmis can be seen in the following..."

Islam and war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 4000 Jews in 1066 weren't murdered for stealing Arab land and water, and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs murdered, maimed, and displaced by "creeping annexation" and "creeping transfer" since 1948 weren't trying to subjugate their new Zionist neighbors either.

Today's Arab majority in Palestine is reacting against a Zionist land grab that has been going on for almost a century; dunam by dunam, always arousing as little notice and resentment until all of historical Israel is under Jewish rule. Since there are not enough Jews on the planet willing to live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River to allow a Jewish majority, Israel will have to choose between existing as a Jewish state or democratic one. Religion has less to do with the demographic problem than greed does.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is not just what some Jews thought. It was becoming known that the Zionists planned to take over Palestine. This was confirmed when Britain landed with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

All of the Palestinians actions were to defend their country from this planned takeover.

It's this kind of twisted, hate filled, xenophobic thinking about Jews that led to all the troubles in the region. How could the Arabs (which Arabs?) have known what the Zionists planned to do when there was no agreement among the early Zionists? There were nearly as many proposals as there were settlers. Some wanted a new Jewish state with the borders of the kingdom of David, which would have taken them all the way into Iraq, and some would have been content with a measure of autonomous Jewish government under British/League of Nations rule, and before that under Ottoman rule. The consensus that emerged, that the Jews must have a sovereign state of their own in the region, was forged in the fire of Arab intolerance of Jews and the violence it produced and the failure of the British to control it and to live up to their obligation under the Mandate to establish a Jewish homeland, not necessarily a state.

The Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Haifa in the 1920's had the same root cause, almost the exact precipitating cause, as the Araqb massacres of Jews in Granada and Cordoba in the 11th century, Arab intolerance of Jews, and it is just as much a core value of Arab culture today, as you demonstrate, as it was a thousand years ago.

"The 1066 Granada massacre took place on 30 December 1066 (9 Tevet 4827),[86] when a Muslim mob stormed the royal palace in Granada, crucified Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela and massacred most of the Jewish population of the city. 'More than 1,500 Jewish families, numbering 4,000 persons, fell in one day.'

"According to historian Bernard Lewis, the massacre - in Muslim narrative - is 'usually ascribed to a reaction among the Muslim population against a powerful and ostentatious Jewish vizier.' Muslims' sentiments of resentments of refusal of Jews to be subjugated by Muslims as Dhimmis can be seen in the following..."

Islam and war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 4000 Jews in 1066 weren't murdered for stealing Arab land and water, and the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs murdered, maimed, and displaced by "creeping annexation" and "creeping transfer" since 1948 weren't trying to subjugate their new Zionist neighbors either.

Today's Arab majority in Palestine is reacting against a Zionist land grab that has been going on for almost a century; dunam by dunam, always arousing as little notice and resentment until all of historical Israel is under Jewish rule. Since there are not enough Jews on the planet willing to live between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River to allow a Jewish majority, Israel will have to choose between existing as a Jewish state or democratic one. Religion has less to do with the demographic problem than greed does.

Nonsense, the Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Haifa and other places in the 1920's were caused by false claims the Jews were attacking al Aksa, not by your false claims about land theft, and the massacres the Arabs committed during second intifada was also caused by false claims the Jews were attacking al Aksa, not by your or Chomsky's fantasies about land theft. All of the troubles a thousand years ago and today are the result of Arab intolerance of Jews and the violence with which they expressed these attitudes. Had the Arabs ever been willing to live peacefully with Jews, none of the problems the Palestinian Arabs or the Jews are suffering today would exist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is not just what some Jews thought. It was becoming known that the Zionists planned to take over Palestine. This was confirmed when Britain landed with the Balfour declaration in its pocket.

All of the Palestinians actions were to defend their country from this planned takeover.

You claim there is no border. So Israel, by your logic, is free to occupy settle and control any land that is NOT part of a Sovereign Nation State. Because you see, Israel IS a Sovereign Nation State.

So what IS the Sovereign State of Israel's Eastern border?

According to PF Tinmore Israel has no borders so where ever another nation starts Israel stops. Since Palestine is not a State they have no Country and Israel is free to take it.

 

[georgephillip]

So what IS the Sovereign State of Israel's Eastern border?

Oh, that's easy. Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. Annex I (a). Israel-Jordan International Boundary Delimitation and Demarcation. Simple, isn't it

Only if you can provide some proof.
Otherwise it's just more kewl, kosher krap.

 

[SAYIT]

You claim there is no border. So Israel, by your logic, is free to occupy settle and control any land that is NOT part of a Sovereign Nation State. Because you see, Israel IS a Sovereign Nation State.

Not so.

Everything inside Israel's borders is theirs. Everything that is not is not.

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence,...

The Avalon Project : Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933

Palestine is a state according to the Palestinians. They don't need Israel's recognition or approval.

In other words, according to you, Palestine is a state of mind.

Or just a case of wishful thinking.

 

[Hossfly]

Not so.

Everything inside Israel's borders is theirs. Everything that is not is not.



Palestine is a state according to the Palestinians. They don't need Israel's recognition or approval.

In other words, according to you, Palestine is a state of mind.

Or just a case of wishful thinking.

Then, Palestine is a figment?

 

[georgephillip]

You claim there is no border. So Israel, by your logic, is free to occupy settle and control any land that is NOT part of a Sovereign Nation State. Because you see, Israel IS a Sovereign Nation State.

So what IS the Sovereign State of Israel's Eastern border?

According to PF Tinmore Israel has no borders so where ever another nation starts Israel stops. Since Palestine is not a State they have no Country and Israel is free to take it.

I think the operative word is "territory" and not "state."
Many Jews seem to think Israel's entitled to occupy all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[toomuchtime_]

So what IS the Sovereign State of Israel's Eastern border?

According to PF Tinmore Israel has no borders so where ever another nation starts Israel stops. Since Palestine is not a State they have no Country and Israel is free to take it.

I think the operative word is "territory" and not "state."
Many Jews seem to think Israel's entitled to occupy all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there were an occupation, nothing in the GC prohibits individuals from Israel from moving to the territories. No part of the population of Israel was deported or transferred to the territories as a government policy. That the government facilitated the move for those who chose to live there does not qualify as a transfer or deportation. Your post is just another example of Arab intolerance of Jews living among them. Without that attitude, there would be no problems between these two peoples.

 

[georgephillip]

According to PF Tinmore Israel has no borders so where ever another nation starts Israel stops. Since Palestine is not a State they have no Country and Israel is free to take it.

I think the operative word is "territory" and not "state."
Many Jews seem to think Israel's entitled to occupy all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there were an occupation, nothing in the GC prohibits individuals from Israel from moving to the territories. No part of the population of Israel was deported or transferred to the territories as a government policy. That the government facilitated the move for those who chose to live there does not qualify as a transfer or deportation. Your post is just another example of Arab intolerance of Jews living among them. Without that attitude, there would be no problems between these two peoples.

There is an occupation as institutions from the UNSC to the International Red Cross have noted.
As Occupying Power Israel is prohibited from transferring its individual civilians into the territory it occupies.
Abject apologists for the Zionist policies of "creeping annexation" and "creeping transfer" are the only reason for problems between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think the operative word is "territory" and not "state."
Many Jews seem to think Israel's entitled to occupy all of the territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there were an occupation, nothing in the GC prohibits individuals from Israel from moving to the territories. No part of the population of Israel was deported or transferred to the territories as a government policy. That the government facilitated the move for those who chose to live there does not qualify as a transfer or deportation. Your post is just another example of Arab intolerance of Jews living among them. Without that attitude, there would be no problems between these two peoples.

There is an occupation as institutions from the UNSC to the International Red Cross have noted.
As Occupying Power Israel is prohibited from transferring its individual civilians into the territory it occupies.
Abject apologists for the Zionist policies of "creeping annexation" and "creeping transfer" are the only reason for problems between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

The is no occupation in the legal sense. The GC refer to territories captured from another country when it speaks of occupation, but Gaza and the West Bank were not recognized as belonging to another country, so there never was an occupation. When people or organizations speak of occupation today, they are expressing their opinion that the territories should become a part of a Palestinian state if there ever is one, but this has no meaning as far as the GC are concerned because these territories were not recognized as a part of another country when Israel captured them.

Everyone understands that all the problems of the region come from Arab intolerance, but most of the world has such a low opinion of Arabs that they don't believe there is any purpose to condemning it because they don't think Arabs are capable of behaving any differently, just as most of the world has thought Arabs weren't capable of democracy or honest government or respect for human rights, so rather than condemn Arab racism, much of the world tries to accommodate it by seeking excuses for it and by seeking ways to placate the Arabs; thus the nonsense you have spouting about why Arabs were so keen on massacring Jews and this nonsense about occupying territories that have not belonged to any country since the Ottoman Empire was dismantled.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In memorable words of the 1937 Royal Commission Report "This illegal [Arab] immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make a case out for the misery of the Arabs if at the same time their compatriots from adjoining states could not be kept from going in to share that misery.".
Palistanians should embrace their illegal immigrant roots and attain mental balance and peace.

For every 1000 Jews who immigrated there were 38 Arabs.

One report said that Arab immigration was "insignificant."

The number of Arabs declined from about 93% at the turn of the century to about 65% by 1947.

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy the Arab Muslim population of Palestine in 1900 was about 500,000. McCarthy estimates they numbered 1.2mil by 1947, an increase of nearly 150% in just 47 years.
US population increased by 90% in the same period.
Clearly the number of Arabs did not decline as you claim.

If you plug those number into Excel you will find that the increase is only a couple percent a year.