I will not Bow!

[MrMax]

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?

It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.

PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.

PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

 

[Kondor3]

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?

It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.

PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.

PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.

Yes, we've all seen the argument...

Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...

Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...

"And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.

We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.

We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.

You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.

But not until we've gotten our share.

Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."

 

[montelatici]

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

Do you get it?

It's a morally bankrupt and indefensible position. Now you know.

PS Israel wasn't formed until '48, WWII ended in '45.

PPS The first international organization which the Israeli government joined was the International Wheat Council, established as part of Point Four Program in early 1949. Since 11 May 1949, the State of Israel is a member the United Nations.

Yes, we've all seen the argument...

Since the end of WWII, it's illegal, under international law, to acquire land by force of arms...

Great, for everyone who had already carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Sucks, for everyone who had not yet carved-out a space for themselves, prior to that time...

Were I an Israeli, I would be tempted to say...

"And we, too, will be happy to oblige, and to abide by such nicities of international law, just as soon as we've carved-out a space for ourselves, just like all of you did.

We've seen so-called 'international law' stacked against us time and again, because of who we are, and what has been done to us in the past, and allowing 6,000,000 of our innocent men, women and children to be slaughtered, and it's gotten to the point with us that we are simply not going to take your shit any longer.

We are going to complete our Reconquista, whether you like it or not.

You aren't going to do diddly-squat about it. You know it. We know it. The world knows it.

After we get our share, just like you've gotten yours, we'll join you in acting all high and mighty and pompous.

But not until we've gotten our share.

Don't like that? Then come and do something about it. Or eat shit and die. Either way."

I remember Ian Smith saying much the same thing.

"We may be a small country, but we are a determined people who have been called upon to play a role of world-wide significance.

We Rhodesians have rejected the doctrinaire philosophy of appeasement and surrender. The decision which we have taken today is a refusal by Rhodesians to sell their birthright. And, even if we were to surrender, does anyone believe that Rhodesia would be the last target of the Communists in the Afro-Asian block?

We have struck a blow for the preservation of justice, civilization, and Christianity; and in the spirit of this belief we have this day assumed our sovereign independence. God bless you all."

or

"Let me say it again. I don't believe in black majority rule ever in Rhodesia, not in a thousand years...."

 

[toastman]

Again, Jordan attacked Israel first, not the other way around.

Bullshit!

Not long after November 1966...

...the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attacked the village of as-Samu in the Jordanian-occupied West Bank. Jordanian units that engaged the Israelis were quickly beaten back. Between 14 and 21 Jordanian soldiers were killed in the operation and 37 more were wounded. Overall, 18 were killed, 130 wounded, while 125 houses, the school, and the clinic were destroyed in the attack. Israel's attack was deplored by the Security Council....

Try again, maybe your luck will change?

Locker room chest thumping is not an "attack".

An attack is more like trying to provoke the Syrian's into an armed response.

Moesha Dayan was right.

Israel started 80% of the wars its been in.

You're funny!

You weren't talking about how the '67 war was started, but was talking about how the West Bank came to be occupied, as a result of the '67 war. So you're saying the two are completely separate, un-related issues?

Now that's a WOW!

Wow, I knew you were dumb, but wow. Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, but I never said Israel was occupying Jordan, which makes your comment stupid. Jordan joined the war even though Israel warned the not to.

You wanna talk about "dumb"?

If Jordan "joined the war", then it's logical to assume they were not part of the war prior to that "joining". And if they weren't part of the war prior to that "joining", then they couldn't have possibly "started" that war with an attack on Israel.

It's not possible to join a war you've already started, but that's what you're claiming.

Talk about dumb...

Another failure of a post by Billo the Retard.

Hey, it's not my fault you can't prove what you claim.

More failure from Billo the lying propagandist!
All you showed me was a couple of skirmishes between Jordan and Israel BEFORE the war started in June. LOL . Nice try. Would you like to try again??

As for you last paragraph and statement, you made absolutely no sense. Jordan joined the war that was between Israel and Egypt . It had nothing to do with Jordan. You always complain that 'Israel attacked first', well Jordqn attacked Israel in this case. Such a simple concept, yet you can't even comprehend it.
Lol that was fun!

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Egypt allowing dozens of attack against Israel since 1965, is not enough provocation to act? Attack from the Golan in 1966 or 1967 is not provocation?

How many times should Israel be attacked before they should take action? Each attack from Egypt or Syria was an act of war.

Why should Israel have waited till it was invaded from three sides? War had already been declared. Plans of the arab attack had been uncovered. Troops had amassed.
What should Israel have waited for? Their actions are what saved Israel. Every decade Israel was forced into war. Why should the arabs have the advantage when Israel had already been under attack from Egypt and Syria?

 

[aris2chat]

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.

Israel have been attacked from Egypt and the Golan for years.

As for the Liberty, there was plenty of fault on both sides. USN denied they had a ship in that area when asked. They were in a war zone. They did not respond when hailed on the radio. Against orders the Liberty fire on the torpedo boat. Every investigation determined it was a mistake. Israel paid for damages to the Liberty.

 

[aris2chat]

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.

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

 

[montelatici]

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.

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

 

[Hossfly]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

Hang in there, Tinmore. We'll get that land back for the rightful owners. Uh, who are the rightful owners if not the Israelis?

 

[Sally]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

Naturally Haniya thinks it is quite OK that the Muslims left the Saudi Peninsula and invaded the surrounding countries and took over there. Hmm, I wonder why the Muslims in southern Thailand are so busy killing the Buddhists there for years. Do they really have to have that part of Thailand for their own? Couldn't they just get along with the Buddhists living there? You can say that same thing about what has happened in the Philippines, a Catholic country, with regard to the Muslim there.

 

[aris2chat]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

Why do you believe that Europeans had a right to settle and displace local inhabitants.

Do you feel the same about the Pope (acting as the UN for Cathoilc nations at the time) granting Portugal and Brazil the right to settle different parts of South America and displacing the local inhabitants in many cases?

The Vatican, not the pope, has a non voting seat at the UN. Though right now it may wish it was not a member.

Jews like arab immigrated. Under the mandate two years living there was all that was required. Jews had as much right to a jewish nation. They bought, built, developed, cultivated, created jobs, all part of paring for statehood.

Jews were kicked out of arab state and were incorporated into the Israeli population.
Jews came from all around the world, not just europe. After the holocaust, European jews that had been in nazi camps needed a homeland. Even back in the early 1800 the Ottoman encouraged the jews to buy land and settle in what later became the british mandate.

Jews did not simply arrive from europe and steal land. Israel was where they were from.
They were returning home. They came to care for their homeland.

 

[toastman]

That is true. The mandates did not take possession they merely held the land in trust. The land was ceded to the inhabitants.

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Britain, Saudi, Kuwait and Iraq that already ceded the land to become a jewish state back in 1922 at al Aqeer.
Britain was entrusted to allow the jewish inhabitants to build a nation. Even those who had only been there a few years. People coming, buying and developing land, including land no one wanted like the swamp land. After the fall of the Ottoman, the whole region was divided up. Israel has as much right to exist at the rest of the middle east countries.

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

 

[montelatici]

i Jews like arab immigrated.

Europeans immigrated. The local population are/were predominately the same people that have always lived in Palestine. They were once Jews, Samaritans etc. Most converted to Christianity when Constantine became a Christian and Christianity became the state religion of the (Eastern) Roman Empire. After the Arab conquests most converted to Islam.

"Arab", as you know, is a cultural and linguistic denomination, not a racial or ethnic denomination. The only ethnic/racial Arabs are the people from the Arabian peninsula. A Tunisian is culturally an Arab, but racially and ethnically he/she is Berber, Phoenician, etc.

 

[toastman]

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.

 

[aris2chat]

The problem with that is that it was not their land to give away.

The fact is that when the mandate left Palestine the land had still not been given away.

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

It was the mandate's responsibility to break up what was the Ottoman empire into nations. Breaking up simply by tribes or sanjuks was too small and unable to support themselves. The mandate was the rule in the mandate. Both the French and British tried to break up into nations that could have an economy that would support the needs of a state.

UN wanted to create a state for the arab palestinians, but the arab states refused. With the end of the Ottoman, it was the right and responsibility of the mandates and the arabs to form nations.

 

[Hossfly]

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

It was the mandate's responsibility to break up what was the Ottoman empire into nations. Breaking up simply by tribes or sanjuks was too small and unable to support themselves. The mandate was the rule in the mandate. Both the French and British tried to break up into nations that could have an economy that would support the needs of a state.

UN wanted to create a state for the arab palestinians, but the arab states refused. With the end of the Ottoman, it was the right and responsibility of the mandates and the arabs to form nations.

The Palestinian faction, led by Tinmore, refuse to believe the Arabs refused. That's where the problem lies. They still have pipe dreams.

 

[montelatici]

When the Mandate left, Israel declared independence, legally I may add.
Palestine WAS the mandate. The Mandate WAS Palestine.
In other words, it became Israel after the mandate left.

Of course that is not true.

Sure it is. Rocco has explained it to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over with links. But you refuse to believe it. Your problem, not mine.

A world power can do anything it wants, it can give land away to any entity it wants. From that point of view there is nothing illegal about the establishment of Israel.

Whether it is just or not or if it will be demographically sustainable for the long term is another matter. The British Government gave Cecil Rhodes a charter for his British South Africa Company (BSAC) to rule, police, and make new treaties and concessions from the Limpopo River to the great lakes of Central Africa, which he established as Rhodesia. Was it just, probably not, was it sustainable in the long term, no.