I will not Bow!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them. But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.

Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?
I'd have to care enough to be upset. Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.

The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.
 
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.
 
May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY
You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!

You get them when you're born and have them until you die.



WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.
 
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Oh, so you rationalize your hypocrisy with a date? WoW! That's a steaming huge load of ...
 
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.
 
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.

So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?
 
May 13 1948, and promptly gave them away by going to war on the Jews ILLEGALLY
You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!

You get them when you're born and have them until you die.



WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.:eusa_whistle:
 
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.

So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?

Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...

Do you get it?
 
Poland is a sovereign country. Not even REMOTELY close of a comparison.

I wonder why you keep coming up with these idiotic comparisons that have no similarities. One would think that after you embaressed yourself by comparing thousands upon thousands of Jews being gassed to death to the IDF using tear gas for riot dispersal, that you would stop making them :lol:
In both cases, you're taking land (that isn't yours) by force of arms.

So what's the difference?



The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place. Lets take Poland that stole German land after WW1 and evicted the German land owners by force. You know that right of return well Germany implemented it and took back all the stolen land.

Now look at Palestine and who owned the land prior to the arab invasion of Israel in 1948, then implement the right of return and you have Jews taking back their land.
 
What everyone seems to forget is, that this conflict has never been between the Palestinians and Israel in the Arab mind. Israel has thus far gone to war with all her Arab neighbors...The artificial peace they have signed is not something the Arab populations will ever accept...

Besides, Abbas has out maneuvered Netanyahu and signed the fifteen UN Convections...

Israel will tighten the noose, Palestinians will go to UN, the BDS will grow dramatically, even in America.




That artificial peace as you call it could see the destruction of the arab world if they reneged on it. First off the USA would stop all aid and then send in the troops to drive the arab armies back. The UN would issue a proclamation dismissing all arab representatives from the UN and allowing the USA to place them under arrest for war crimes, crimes against humanity and breaches of the un charter

What 15 UN upwardly spiralling columns of warm air would they be then ?

But if you mean the UN conventions then abbas has just singed his own death warrant as this means they cant use terror tactics anymore, or BLOOD LIBELS and MUST engage in peace talks or face UN sanctions

The UN will tell the Palestinians to sit down and negotiate a settlement and to stop making childish demands before they will

Troops will never again will be used to save Israel...Israel will dig its own grave by prolonging her greed over the wishes over the world body. The Boycott will de-fang her like South Africa.



Don't you bother reading what is posted, the BDS movement has been hijacked by right wing and left wing extremist groups and it has became a racist event. Troops other than Israeli have never been used to save Israel, it is capable of doing its own fighting. The Palestinians have already dug their graves and will soon be thrown in them by their thousands because of their greed in wanting it all. The world is slowly coming to see just how violent the muslims are and how they will use that violence to take over the world. Why do you think so many European nations are passing new laws to curtail their takeovers.
 
The boycott against Apartheid South Africa took a long time before its noose tightened enough to force the Boers to negotiate. BDS will take at least as much or more time, but it will eventually work.

In ten years, you will be saying the same thing

Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.




Not if they implement contraception laws to curb the rising birth rate. When it hits the people in their pockets and they cant afford to feed their children then we will see. No government is empowered to allow its citizens to overpopulate and cause starvation and death. So in 10 years expect to see families limited to 3 children with severe monetary losses if they exceed this limit. Even eviction from the country in the worse cases.
 
Maybe, but not in 20, when the Israeli Jews will be governing a noticeable majority of non-Jews.

Oh, I wouldn't count on that since the Israeli Orthodox certainly have a lot of babies. and all those millions of Arabs who call themselves refugees who weren't even born in the area wouldn't be allowed to become citizens of Israel.. Maybe the West Bank and Gaza will have to worry about their own population growing by leaps and bounds and that wouldn't be the problem of Israel. Perhaps Haniya can teach them about birth control. I remember about the time of the last Intifada where there was an interview of some of the people in either the West Bank or Gaza. A Muslim woman who was pregnant with her tenth child was wondering how she was going to be able to feed it.

From another forum and by far the majority opinion on that forum (it is a European forum):

"I have no idea, but there is a time limit for the Jews of Israel. The subjugation of the non-Jews by the Jews is no more pleasant than the subjugation of the non-Alawites by the Alawites and has a sell by date."

Although this was on a Syria thread, I found this person to be succinct. Essentially, once the Jews are ruling over noticeable majority of non-Jews, even the U.S. will have limit its support of Israel if the non-Jews are withheld equal rights, citizenship etc.




Does not make it reality as seen in China were the government restricted the birth rate. Once that is implemented and enforced you will se a sharp decline in the numbers of non Jews as they leave the country for good.
 
Jordan attacked Israel.
The war started when Israel sent its tanks into Egypt, not Jordan.

BTW, Israel is not occupying Jordan.

Which makes your argument even more stupid.

Poland didn't attack Germany.
And the Palestinian's didn't attack Israel.

And Germany didnt have a historical connection to Poland.
Not if you ask the Germans.





The war started when Egypt blocked the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, which was seen as a declaration of war. Then they massed their troops on the Israeli border ready for an all out attack on Israel.

Israel originally occupied Jordanian land as a defensive measure until Jordan relinquished all claims to the land

They did as part of the arab armies invasion in 1948, 1967 and 1973. They have also attacked Israel through terrorism and bombings since 1948.

Yes Poland stole German land as part of the reparations after WW1 and evicted by force the German land owners.
The details are in the treaties made in the run up to the mandate of Palestine.
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

The concept behind the rights of "self-determination" and "national sovereignty" are not unique to the Arab or the Arab Palestinian. The concept is universally applicable to every cultural under the theory. And theoretically, it is part of the "natural law" (is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal) behind humanity; applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

  • Key Features of Natural Law Theories
    • Natural law and divine providence
    • Natural law and practical rationality
    • The substance of the natural law view
    • Paradigmatic and nonparadigmatic natural law theories
  • Theoretical Options for Natural Law Theorists
    • Natural goodness
    • Knowledge of the basic goods
    • The catalog of basic goods
    • From the good to the right

Rocco,



The wording suggests that the Palestinians already had these rights before 1974.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians gain these rights?
(COMMENT)

The question, asks for qualities that arguably apply to the subject. In this case, you are essentially asking:
  • At what point did the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" (Natural Law) as theoretical constructs of jurisprudence, based on morality and ethics apply to the Palestinian?

This goes back to the capacity of the Arab Palestinian to independently derive and comprehend what the qualities of "self-determination and sovereignty" are and mean, relative to their culture. Quite clearly, prior to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab-Palestinian was not implementing any of the qualities associated with "self-determination and sovereignty." The Sultan was the "sovereign" and there was no independent self-determination being exercised by the Arab Palestinian. While there were Arab leaders exercising various forms of "sovereignty" in the greater Middle East and Persian Gulf Regions, the influence of the Court of Sheiks (Sheik Sabah Kuwait), or the quasi-independent tribes under the banner of Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud (House of Saud), did not have that reach in terms of political projection. However, the Sharif and Emir of Mecca (Hussein bin Ali) did have some influence over that portion of the region.

Essential to understanding what the Arab Palestinian had, or did not have, in terms of the theoretical constructs of jurisprudence forming the concepts of "self-determination and sovereignty" rest with the understanding that the Arab-Palestinian was under the influence of either:
  • The Sultan
  • The Sharif and Emir of Mecca
  • The Court of Sheiks
  • The House of Saud

Even later --- the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), originally formed by the Mandatory, was under the influence other than the Arab Palestinian. However, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Haj Amin al-Husseini) became prominent as a leader, it was he that gradually began to introduce the idea of independence for Palestine as an Arab state. The Grand Mufti, himself a former member of the Ottoman Armed Forces during WWI, actively opposed Zionism, and the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.

(ANSWER)

While there were many embryonic Arab-Palestinian leaders that opposed Civil Administration by the Allied Powers, the experience Haj Amin al-Husseini gained in the service of the Ottoman Empire, and what he learned from the adjacent Arab Leaders (Sheik Sabah, Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud, and Hussein bin Ali) was the first Arab Palestinian Leader that independently understood and promoted "self-determination and sovereignty" (the Natural Law) for the Territorial Mandate as a separate Arab State. The ideas behind Haj Amin al-Husseini did not just mimic the position expressed by HRH the Emir Faisal (acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz), but went well beyond.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK. but I don't see the answer to my question in all that.




What question as you did not make one, only an observation from a 1974 document that did not apply in 1947
 
Bill, when are you giving your land back to the indians?
As soon as their casino's reimburse me for my gambling losses.

And Texas back to Mexico?
Oh, I'd love that!

That couldn't happen any sooner.

**** Texas!




They did not force you to go in and gamble, that was your decision and so you must bear the costs.
So when can we expect to see a naked man begging the Indian tribes forgiveness for all the harm his forebears did to them in their greed for land.
 
Three nations, highly armed massed on Israel's border and that signed an agreement to destroy Israel after declaring war when the canal was closed to them. But Israel did something wrong when it acted to protect itself?
Israel did something wrong by launching commando raids into Syria and Jordan prior to that in order to provoke the war.

Or are you are just upset that Israel won in just six days and was able to reach both Cairo and Damascus?
I'd have to care enough to be upset. Quite frankly, I don't care about Egypt, Syria or Israel.

The only thing I'm upset about regarding that war, is the USS Liberty.




The converted WW2 freighter that had hundreds just like it made all over the world, the same design that Egypt had as many of her Naval vessels. So if the US used model T fords and so did the Egyptians how could you tell one from another flying at 600mph +
 
15th post
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.




Yes it was as the concept was written into the LoN charter and was International law. That is why the land became mandated and not given outright.
 
You make a joke about it, but you call out Israel to give back land they took by force, yet you're not willing to do the same. I think there's a name for that...
Before you use that "name", remember this...

..."Conquer by Conquest" was not illegal prior to the end of WWII.

Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.



Not if laws are enacted similar to the ones in the surrounding Islamic nations, or a cap placed on the birth rate.
 
You can't give up inalienable rights, you dumbass!

You get them when you're born and have them until you die.



WRONG as any act that goes against another groups inalienable rights removes your inalienable rights. Because this was an act of war the Palestinians lost their right to free determination in other than war. At every step they have proven that they are not yet ready to stand on their own feet and form a viable government.

The Palestinians started the 1948 war when they went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.:eusa_whistle:




If you want to be stupid they started the war in 632 C.E. when the false prophet attacked the Jewish tribe at medina and wiped them out.

But as you have been told the Jews were invited over by the lands legal owners to colonise Palestine and make it fruitful again. The Palestinians were just itinerant farm workers from the surrounding countries attracted by the thought of work. The whole world was in a major recession so people were travelling looking for work. The Palestinians started the war when along with the arab armies they invaded Israel
 
Max just keeps repeating that stupidity, ironically Demographics have put Mexican Americans as a majority in Texas this day...A fate that will befall Israel.

So then Israel can keep the land, just like the US did?

Like Billo said: The end of WWII changed the rules for International Relations of which Israel is a Signatory...

Do you get it?


Try again as the links you have provided shows that it happened after the end of WW1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom