I will not Bow!

[Billo_Really]

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

Do you get it?

Much like a neutered dog, I don't think he does!

 

[Kondor3]

Occupations always have security problems.

It comes with the territory.

Yeppers...

And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...

Fun, ain't it?

And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid". There you go, you are starting to get it.

If I have people, sworn for decades to destroy me-and-mine and to drown us in the Med, suicide bombing me, and launching rocket-barrages at me, and digging tunnels into my turf, in order to launch guerrilla raids against my people, and if I can substantively lessen those attacks by keeping them separate, then I'm going to do just that, and **** the UN or the Hague or the ICC or Geneva or the Arab League or anyone else who says I cannot. **** 'em. There is nothing to 'get'.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens, and Israel is under no obligation to integrate them into their own society; those under-performers (the Muslim-Arab Palestinians) chose this path for themselves decades ago, and worsened things with Intifada I and II. They are now reaping what they have sown. If then don't like it, they can always leave. Permanently.

 

[Billo_Really]

The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.

Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.





BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.

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.

So now you're defending Nazi Germany?

Amazing!

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.

Oh, shut-up!

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Ready for an all out attack, is not an attack; but sending your tanks over a sovereign border, is.

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

That not defense, that's aggression.

If it was defensive, they would've given the land back.

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.

Who's this "they" people?

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.

More defense of Nazi Germany.

 

[toastman]

The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.

Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.





BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.

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.

So now you're defending Nazi Germany?

Amazing!

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.

Oh, shut-up!

'Dickwadd'

The last time I heard someone use that bane was in high school.
But hey, if you choose to act like an immature kid, that's your problem.

 

[rdean]

Republicans won't bow. But when it comes to kissing? There is no limit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.

Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.





BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.

Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.

 

[toastman]

The difference is that not once have you shown or proven that the land was not theirs in the first place.

Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.





BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.

Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.

Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sorry, my bad.

Here you go...

...land ownership in 1948.





BTW, this is the 2nd time I've shown you this, dickwadd.

Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.

Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job

Example?

 

[aris2chat]

Occupations always have security problems.

It comes with the territory.

Yeppers...

And 'separation' is Israel's answer to that security problem...

Fun, ain't it?

And, "separation" or separate development in Afrikaans is called "Apartheid". There you go, you are starting to get it.

You build a fence so your neighbor's dog stop destroying your yard, that is just good sense. Or you call the police and SPCA and have him put down if the neighbor's can't control their pet.

 

[pbel]

Republicans won't bow. But when it comes to kissing? There is no limit.

I will bet the Republicans will Bow again to the changing Demographics in favor of inclusionary politics.

 

[Billo_Really]

'Dickwadd'

The last time I heard someone use that bane was in high school.
But hey, if you choose to act like an immature kid, that's your problem.

I only have one? Cool!

 

[toastman]

Israel's propagandists are like that. Show them the facts in black and white (or living color) and the next day they will bounce back with the same old lie.

Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job

Example?

Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Tinmore, you just described yourself to a tee !! Good job

Example?

Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.

That's what I thought.

You don't have squat.

 

[toastman]

Example?

Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.

That's what I thought.

You don't have squat.

Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. Or about how Palestine=mandate.
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, but even the THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXERCISE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE AND THE DIVISION FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS cannot point to a first affirmation.

Well, there is an answer, but Paul won't like it. The year 1983.

You are a little late. My question stemmed from resolution 3236 of 1974. This shows that the Palestinians already had the right to self determination then.

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

(COMMENT)

While I think it goes back to the arguments presented by the Emir and the Grand Mufti, Resolution 3236 (XXIX) points to no previous reference.

Second, there may be a case to argue concerning the previous existence of inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, but --- that doesn't mean that the Arab Palestinian actually had a realization of those rights. You will notice that the 2013 General Assembly Resolution makes the reference: "Having considered the report of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People." That report to the General Assembly says in part:

The Committee's recommendations were not adopted by the Security Council, due to the negative vote of a permanent member, and have not been implemented. They were, however, endorsed by an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly, to which the Committee reports annually. The Assembly reaffirmed that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East could not be established without the achievement of a just solution of the problem of Palestine based on the attainment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The Assembly also requested the Committee to keep the situation relating to the question of Palestine under review and to report and make suggestions to the General Assembly or the Security Council, as appropriate, and to promote the greatest possible dissemination of information on its recommendations through non-governmental organizations and other appropriate means.

SOURCE: Report by the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People

This, in effect, makes the same argument I made in a previous posting. Without the KSAs to implement the rights, the rights are invisible. The Arab Palestinian never actualized a right to anything. They just used it as justification for the continuation of Jihadist and Fedayeen activities directed against Israel and its allies.

I agree that, as far as documentation goes, A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 is a capstone reference. Having said that, it is no substitute for tangible evidence of attempts to actualize those objectives; and that dates back to a time before the Partition Plan. It must also be remembered that the first successful actualization of the right to self-determination was the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988).

If you use the A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974 as the benchmark, then you are pointing back to my original answer, that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people comes from a time influenced by the Emir and the Grand Mufti. However, if, as in modern times, you used the actualization as the benchmark, then your timeline begins (as the Division for Palestinian Rights notes) in 1983 for realization and 1988 for actualization.

You are free to make your own evaluation. But it is relatively clear to me that the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are, yet once again, in danger of being lost; just as they were from 1948-to-1967 during the forfeiture to the Arab League.

Just My Thought,
R

 

[Hossfly]

Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.

That's what I thought.

You don't have squat.

Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. Or about how Palestine=mandate.
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.

If Tinmore was right about his claims I should think the PA would run him for Prime Minister. He'd be a shoo in. Either that or Court Jester.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Arab-Israeli dispute was not caused by the 1967 Occupation. The Occupation was caused by the Arab-Israeli dispute.


(COMMENT)

Yes, there is a point here.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?

What occupation?

"One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied territory..."

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa

 

[P F Tinmore]

Everytime your bullshit claims are dismantled , you'll spew the same lie over and over again.

That's what I thought.

You don't have squat.

Lol stop pretending like you don't know what I'm talking about. You're more mature than that.
Remember that list I made of your claims that you were wrong about?
All of those are examples. Even after Rocco or I or someone else would give you indisputable evidence that contradicts you claims, the next day you would still be making them.
A perfect example of that would be Israels borders. Or about how Palestine=mandate.
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about so don't tell me I don't have squat.

I have already proved that Palestine exists after the end of the mandate.

Next?

 

[Sally]

OK, but what about the 1948 occupation?

What occupation?

"One of the most important problems that must be cleared up before a lasting peace can be established in Palestine is the question of the disposition of more than 700,000 Arab refugees who during the Palestine conflict fled from their homes in what is now Israeli occupied territory..."

FRUS: Foreign relations of the United States, 1949. The Near East, South Asia, and Africa

Mr. Tinmore, how many of these 700,000 people are still alive? Millions of people after World War II were displaced, and after a few years they certainly didn't think of themselves as refugees anymore and, of course, their children never thought of themselves as refugees. Those children of World War II refugees who were born in the U.S. just thought of themselves as Americans and not refugees of the country their parents had to leave. Do you consider yourself a refugee?