I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again with the subterfuge.

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).


(OBSERVATION)

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city. It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors. They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.

More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly. To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.

The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.

SOURCE: A/532 10 April 1948

There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly." We call them HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again with the subterfuge.

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city. It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors. They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.

More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly. To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.

The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.

SOURCE: A/532 10 April 1948

There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly." We call them HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

Your constant denial and inability to understand simple issues is mind boggling.
For someone who talks about the I/P conflict as much as you,you know very little.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)



I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

DETERMINED PERSIST IN, REJECTION PARTITION

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

They rejection the partition of a territory that they had no sovereignty over. Had they accepted the partition, they would have had a state. Very simple concept, and one that is really not up for debate

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, that is certainly a predictable position for pro-Palestinians to take.

Again with the subterfuge.

They did not reject a state. They rejected partition.

The Palestinians called for their right to an independent state all through the mandate period. I don't see any rejection of a state.

(COMMENT)

The Partition Plan was a Plan to create two states and an internationalized city. It is this kind of song'n'dance routine that the Palestinian plays that demonstrates their true colors. They want the whole pie and won't settle for anything less.

More important still, Arab elements, both inside and outside of Palestine, have exerted organized, intensive effort toward defeating the purposes of the resolution of the General Assembly. To this end, threats, acts of violence and infiltration of organized, armed, uniformed Arab bands into Palestinian territory have been employed. As early as 16 February, the Commission, in its first Special Report to the Security Council, stated that “powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein”.

The organized efforts of Arab elements to prevent the partition of Palestine; the determined efforts to Jews to ensure the establishment of the Jewish State as envisaged by the resolution; and the fact that the Mandatory Power, engaged in the liquidation of its administration and the evacuation of its troops, has found it impossible fully to contain the conflict, have led to virtual civil war in Palestine; to a steady deterioration in administration and security in the territory; and to the imminence of widespread chaos, starvation, strife and bloodshed on a scale hitherto unknown there.

SOURCE: A/532 10 April 1948

There were Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) in February 1948, months before the establishment of the Jewish State; just as there are today, still "defying the resolution of the General Assembly." We call them HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

All of the hostilities and aggression were from the outside.

A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948

(COMMENT)

As it was still under Mandate (UK) and the very early transition to the UNPC, your citation is not only an example of threats, coercion, intimidation, and the promise of genocide, it comes from the Arab Higher Committee reconstituted by the Arab League (foreign interference to the UN and the Mandatory).

Yes, you are right, it was (mostly) external to the Mandatory having jurisdiction over the region. It was originating from the Arab and signed by the Arabs as "solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history;" as to the violence they would initiated (and subsequently did).

Please Note:

• A/AC.21/10 of 16 February 1948 was signed by: Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC).
• Peaceful political brinksmanship noted in this report is not a threat, a form of coercion, or the promise violence as amplified by the AHC.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Rocco, according to Tinmore, Palestinians have not engaged in any hostilities. Everything they have done is in self defense. That includes bot intifads, btw

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Rocco, according to Tinmore, Palestinians have not engaged in any hostilities. Everything they have done is in self defense. That includes bot intifads, btw

And even hijackings like Entebbe that happened outside the country, or pushing a wheelchair-bound man off a ship and into the water to drown.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure you are entirely correct (without the use of subterfuge).

Because that is what they are HOSTILE, no self defence about it is there. They refused the offer of a nation and attacked Israel for daring to accept nation status and become as good as any muslim. That is what this is all over, the fact that the Jews have made themselves as good as if not better than the muslims. While they were stateless the muslims could illtreat them, abuse them even murder them for fun if they felt like it and the Jews had no one to turn to for help and safety. But once the UN granted then the right to a nation and self determination they had a place of safety and could determine their own fate. It also gave them a sense of worth that gave them strength to fight for what is theirs. And they have fought against HOSTILE AGGRESSIVE ARAB PALESTINIANS for the last 65 years. Time that this was made abundantly clear to the world that the muslims are missing their slaves and don't like having to do the dirty work themselves.

Now start treating the Jews as human beings and not as some disease ridden leper, giving them the same rights as you lavish on the psychopathic MASS MURDERING muslim terrorists

No they didn't. That is just an Israeli lie.

(OBSERVATION)

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

I think I saw a phrase like "REFUSAL RECOGNIZE" somewhere in that; see document. A quick cross-check with the diplomatic cable reference seems to bare this out.

Most Respectfully,
R

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.

If I understand your position correctly, the US was hostile and aggressive to the British in 1812. That we should have sought a peaceful solution.

(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.


(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

Attacks are attacks. The excuses don't matter.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah yes, except the British were not fighting over boundaries and sovereignty. It was about their support for the American Indian tribes against American expansion.


(COMMENT)

America has made its share of mistakes. We are not perfect. What can I say?

Most Respectfully,
R

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.

The point I am making is that the Palestinians had been under foreign attack for decades and the UN was a serious threat to them.

Britain was leaving Palestine without accomplishing its goals and they did fend off the attack by the UN for a time. So they did have a measure of success in defending themselves considering their meager resources.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.

I don't understand where you get the opinion that their actions are hostile or aggressive.

(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

 

[pbel]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, that is not where we are going with this.


(COMMENT)

The Palestinians only see themselves as under foreign attack. What really happened was the Arab Palestinians were xenophobic, and unable to open their arms to create a mutually beneficial Jewish Homeland. It is the way of the Arab.


(COMMENT)

I look at the past history of behaviors.

I take a reasonable man view.

Whether or not it is right or wrong, there is a nation called the State of Israel. And the Arab League and puppet proxy (Arab Higher Committee) as a Fifth Columnist element, have opened hostilities (Vigilantism) against the State of Israel.

The vigilantes (HoAP) using asymmetric behaviors attempting to secure their vision of justice according to Arab's understanding of right and wrong, is a "hostile and aggressive" action --- lawless in its own right; even if the claim is a just cause which is not a sure thing.

I guess I have a strange sense of right and wrong. Or, I just don't like self-righteous vigilantes that are Jihadist and Fedayeen.

Most Respectfully,
R

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

 

[toastman]

There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?

Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.

Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.

The British press and government called George Washington and the Patriots Terrorists...Guess your sense of right and wrong sounds like you're an Israeli apologist, I mean how can you justify taking land from people who lived there for a millennia, and give it to another group by Colonial Fiat and call it Just under todays norms?

Sure the Jews have been persecuted for thousands of years and deserve safety, but what did the Palestinians have to do with it?

Please explain your logic to justify these actions.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

There will never be a two state solution. What have the Palestinians done to prove that they can live peacefully next to Israel ?

Honestly Pbel, you might not like to hear this but, as of now, I don't see a solution to the conflict. When the fake peace talks are over, things will continue the way they are.

Yes, I know, BDS will continue as well, but I consider them a minor threat , at best

Toast, you're being short-sighted...Think a hundred or even two hundred years...Israel's neighbors will be modernized Politically and militarily...The Palestinians are the least problem for Israel...Its Al Qaida which is growing not diminishing.

Already the Europeans are clamoring for a two state solution to the 67 borders to force the original ideas of the Mandate...


Only Peace and trade with her neighbors can save the Israeli State in the long-run. And I bet if the question is put to the Israeli electorate they will accept the 67 borders for a real sustainable peace...

If the peace is broken after it is established, all Israel's critics will support her right to defend her-self.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Well, you have most of it wrong.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

I'm sure Rocco can speak for himself...However, although I support a two state solution for the sake of world peace, I can not logically accept the Original Mandate authored by the European Powers dispossessing a people from their homes because of atrocities by others. That simple.

(COMMENT)

The original mandate and the authors never, ever, sanctioned the dispossessing a people from their homes under any extrajudicial standing, cause or situation. You will not find the authority for the taking of any land mentioned anywhere by the Allied Powers, the Mandatory, the Charter or the Partition Plan.

That was an unintended consequence of the outbreak of hostilities between the parties in question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Defending your country is a Noble thing. Creating a Nation from someone else's indigenous homelands is not...

Period.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

I need not apologize for any party associated with the conflict; in whatever the capacity.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

(COMMENT)

I'm held to a higher standard and cannot engage in arguments against the person, only the position they hold given reason.

In the last week, the principle argument has been:

• The hostility of the Palestinian (Jihadist and Fedayeen) and the logic behind their past criminal behavior and asymmetric activity.

• The territorial disputes and the validity/legality in the establishment of the Jewish State; and the impact of various UN activities in the implementation of the Partition Plan.

• And the attempts by various parties in the disruption of the implementation process.

Obviously, the position I've taken is that there is no justification for some of the lawlessness exhibited by the virtual victim, and the hostile posture they have taken. And obviously I have consistently advocated for the adoption of peaceful means and approaches to the resolution of the conflict. My adversaries have encouraged another path.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

et al,

I need not apologize for any party associated with the conflict; in whatever the capacity.

Why are you deflecting?? It seems like you and Tinmore simply cannot accept certain truths about the Palestinians that Rocco has brought up, but calling him an Israeli apologist because he gives us facts and backs them up (which is completely contradictory to what Tinmore does) is ridiculous. Why don't you try and and prove him wrong, if you believe that he is.
So by your logic, you and Tinmore are 'Palestinian apologists'.

(COMMENT)

I'm held to a higher standard and cannot engage in arguments against the person, only the position they hold given reason.

In the last week, the principle argument has been:

• The hostility of the Palestinian (Jihadist and Fedayeen) and the logic behind their past criminal behavior and asymmetric activity.

• The territorial disputes and the validity/legality in the establishment of the Jewish State; and the impact of various UN activities in the implementation of the Partition Plan.

• And the attempts by various parties in the disruption of the implementation process.

Obviously, the position I've taken is that there is no justification for some of the lawlessness exhibited by the virtual victim, and the hostile posture they have taken. And obviously I have consistently advocated for the adoption of peaceful means and approaches to the resolution of the conflict. My adversaries have encouraged another path.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, no one is questioning your integrity, but look at the phrases and adjective you use...Terrorism by people fighting a war is very common...The French Resistance comes to mind, Kosovo, and many other places...Criminal behavior? In an active conflict? Has the UN charged them?

Its your position of Justice which lacks balance to me.