I will not Bow!

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

pbel, et al,

Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity. It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace. As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries. It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.


(COMMENT)

I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs. It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.

Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt. Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.

Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.


(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture). It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings. The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process. For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.

This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world. There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture).

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

(COMMENT)

And this is one of those areas, in which I agree. The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.

It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument. Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort. In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

First of all, it's not Homelands in the plural. Take out the S. That tiny country is barely enough land for one Homeland.
Secondly, if you've ever read a history of the Jewish people, you'd see that for 2,000 years they have suffered pogroms, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, etc. And we haven't even come to the Holocaust yet. In this day and age it's pretty easy to emigrate to America, but it wasn't always that way. When my mom's family were forced out of Poland, they applied for visas to America, but they were denied. They had no choice but to go to the only Jewish country in the world--Israel. Jews need one place in the world that they can call their own. Palestinians are part of the larger Arab people. This can be seen by the fact that Abbas can't seem to make a decision for his own people, on his own, without consulting the Arab League first. Arabs have 22 countries where they can eat Arab food, dress in Arab clothing, speak the Arabic language, practice Arabic culture and religions, and live among their Arab brethren. They could even share in Arab wealth and oil money, if they were smart enough. We have one country like that, and it's also a land rich in Jewish history. Every city and part of Israel has a significant Jewish event associated with it. Therefore, for all these reasons, we might be forced to share Israel with the Arabs, but we will never give it up totally.

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

Oh, I believe that in part, your assessment is on the mark.

Tx. Rocco, however your arbitrary date of the 19th century for changing the rules of political recognition is historical error...Especially today when people who are culturally bound together as groups are still gaining nationhood with sovereignty because they finally desire...

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the break-up of specific geopolitical regions in recent decades has aided one bit in the development of intercultural relations or economic prosperity. It was more a very expedient means of restoring peace. As for the cultures, it only aided and abetted the cultural divide; mostly along hillbilly type clan boundaries. It does nothing to bring the people together for the greater good.


(COMMENT)

I don't think Kosovo is a good example because, under the Empire and the later Yugoslavian Regimes, there was peace between Kosovo and the Serbs. It was only after the break-ups that we see a tension explode into conflict.

Similarly, the Sudan is not a very good example because historically, it was part of Egypt. Even today, the Sudanese peace is very fragile.

Nothing about either of these self-declared independent countries actions, in their respective regions, has anything to be proud of either as a enlightened people able to or as societies that were able to emerge a strong species element.


(COMMENT)

This is a justification and argument based on in strength in numbers alone. It has nothing at all to do with what is right. In most cases, the "tyranny of the majority" overcomes the minority; whether we look at it from a political standpoint or a military standpoint. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is actually one of those rare examples where the decisions and subsequent military action made by a majority (Palestinians + the Arab League), placing its interests above those of a minority group (the smaller Jewish concern), did not workout in favor of the majority (normally it does).

The original reasoning behind the establishment of a Jewish Homeland at its cultural point of origin was, not just based on availability by the fall of the empire, but because it was recognized that the greatest concern was that the majority will tyrannize and exploit the minority (Jewish People as a culture). It was a benevolent action that fell above the general understanding of the lesser developed Arab world that is culturally based on certain preferences along ethnic, religious or racial groupings. The Jewish minority is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the shear might of its numbers, and a quasi-democratic process. For the Allied Powers to overcome the tyranny of the majority (Arabs) it was necessary to Mandate a political structure and Administrative process in which a minority was given a certain degree of primacy in that Allied Powers decision making.

This is actually not so unusual in the Islamic world. There are many documented cases where there is a quasi-dominant minority that has developed (as an example, Sunni Royal Families having domain over a predominately Shi'ite culture).

Our customs of politics mean nothing...It is the West ignoring the customs of the ME's people that is causing conflicts in the ME...

(COMMENT)

And this is one of those areas, in which I agree. The Allied Powers, and later the Western World, did tend to override the "customs of the ME's people" (as you say) because it was necessary to establish mechanisms to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority:" which would have surely developed in a region dominated by the Arab culture and counterproductive Islamic philosophy.

It was necessary not to trivialize or oversimplify the interest of the majority (strength by numbers - might makes right - majority should have the rule) Arab argument. Yet it was just as essential that the concept and constitution superstructure behind the idea of establishing a Jewish National Home for the permanent preservation of the culture, be sturdy and able to withstand and defend itself against that inevitable back biting and end fighting that was surely to emerge in an environment surrounded by a culture and people susceptible to Islamic Fundamentalism and the danger that it would overcome the Jewish culture preservation effort. In the period, 1915 to 1920 - when these decisions were being made, the dangers may not have been immediately obvious, but the did ultimately emerge being slowly and exploding into the 1929 Riots; culminating in what we have today.

Most Respectfully,
R

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

They never did as their indigenous homelands are still there, just as they were when they left them to migrate to Palestine looking for work. If you call living in fear or beatings, rape, and murder living in peace then I would not like to see your living in fear. Don't forget the land grabs by the muslims that had been going on for 1400 years every time the Jews turned the land fertile. Places like Hebron that saw MASSACRE after MASSACRE of the Jews that lived there. Have you read the dhimmi laws and what the non muslims had to contend with. No horses they were reserved for the muslims, no weapons, distinctive clothing and marks ( ring a bell as this is were Hitler got the idea from ) no open show of their religion, no repairs to their religious buildings. There are stories of Jews getting beaten to death by mobs of muslims for slowing their shadow to fall close to a mosque, others of Jews getting beaten for allegedly disrespecting islam because the local shiek wanted his daughter as a sex slave. The Jews never knew peace for over 2000 years.

What did the Jews do to deserve the atrocities of muslim psychopathic warlords who also were instrumental in the holocaust led by the grand mufti himself. The same grand mufti who begged Hitler to send him more Jews as he was running out in Palestine.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

 

[Phoenall]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

Still fantasising about the non existing '67 borders, they are the '67 ceasefire lines look at UN res 242

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.


(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

Still fantasising about the non existing '67 borders, they are the '67 ceasefire lines look at UN res 242

Indeed the '67 borders are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be borders. These lines ran along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

They also ran along the international borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and Palestine and Egypt. None of those armistice lines were ever borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.

Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.

You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.

You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.

 

[rhodescholar]

Secondly, if you've ever read a history of the Jewish people, you'd see that for 2,000 years they have suffered pogroms, blood libels, expulsions, inquisitions, etc. And we haven't even come to the Holocaust yet. In this day and age it's pretty easy to emigrate to America, but it wasn't always that way. When my mom's family were forced out of Poland, they applied for visas to America, but they were denied. They had no choice but to go to the only Jewish country in the world--Israel. Jews need one place in the world that they can call their own. Palestinians are part of the larger Arab people. This can be seen by the fact that Abbas can't seem to make a decision for his own people, on his own, without consulting the Arab League first. Arabs have 22 countries where they can eat Arab food, dress in Arab clothing, speak the Arabic language, practice Arabic culture and religions, and live among their Arab brethren. They could even share in Arab wealth and oil money, if they were smart enough. We have one country like that, and it's also a land rich in Jewish history. Every city and part of Israel has a significant Jewish event associated with it. Therefore, for all these reasons, we might be forced to share Israel with the Arabs, but we will never give it up totally.

The whole argument of "rights" for the arabs is total garbage; it is a fig leaf to slaughter as many jews as possible, forcing them out of the mideast, just as the animal filth arab muslims are doing and have done for centuries to the multitudes of other non-muslim groups.

I laugh when I read the crap posted about how "good the relations were between arabs and jews before Israel/zionism", it's is such abject garbage that it makes the one posting it look like an idiot chimp, totally devoid of history.

The bottom line is that the arab muslim will not tolerate the rights or sovereignty of any other group in the middle east, period.

All else is hot air and bullshit.

 

[rhodescholar]

They never did as their indigenous homelands are still there, just as they were when they left them to migrate to Palestine looking for work. If you call living in fear or beatings, rape, and murder living in peace then I would not like to see your living in fear. Don't forget the land grabs by the muslims that had been going on for 1400 years every time the Jews turned the land fertile. Places like Hebron that saw MASSACRE after MASSACRE of the Jews that lived there. Have you read the dhimmi laws and what the non muslims had to contend with. No horses they were reserved for the muslims, no weapons, distinctive clothing and marks ( ring a bell as this is were Hitler got the idea from ) no open show of their religion, no repairs to their religious buildings. There are stories of Jews getting beaten to death by mobs of muslims for slowing their shadow to fall close to a mosque, others of Jews getting beaten for allegedly disrespecting islam because the local shiek wanted his daughter as a sex slave. The Jews never knew peace for over 2000 years.

What did the Jews do to deserve the atrocities of muslim psychopathic warlords who also were instrumental in the holocaust led by the grand mufti himself. The same grand mufti who begged Hitler to send him more Jews as he was running out in Palestine.

Notice how the same ***** who whine that arab muslims are second-class citizens and are discriminated against in Israel never mention how the jews lived as dhimmis for 1,400 years, enduring constant pogroms and attacks under arab muslim control, nor do they mention what arab muslims are doing to minorities in the 22 arab muslim countries today.

It's all israel, all day...just boring, repetitive garbage. Filth like the tinmore group that post here are seen all over the web using various monikers, they are scum and not to be taken seriously.

 

[rhodescholar]

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

Another totally non-credible poster.

The arab muslims have not agreed to anything that does not include the complete elimination of Israel. When one side refuses to recognize the rights, let alone the existence of the other side, and demands that Israel accept 5 million falsely named "refugees" into its midst, that is not acceptance - that's is nonsense.

And posters like you still have no answer as to why, when Israel was within the '67 borders, was there more terrorism and war waged against it than almost any other time.

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

This is exactly the example I was eluding to.

Answer this one question...Why did the Palestinians have to give up their indigenous Homelands to establish a Jewish one? After all the Jews lived in peace prior to European Zionists propose a Jewish State?

I understand the reasoning of a safe haven like America, where minority rights are codified, but what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?

For me it is a true Moral dilemma, perhaps you can answer it?

(COMMENT)

• "(B)ut what did the Palestinians do to deserve their loss for European atrocities?"

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this. And that is just it. There is no way to address your question in the higher order of logic that the Arab Palestinian will accept. They hear and understand, but cannot accept because it is not in their culture.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)​

The Allied Powers never expected the Arab Palestinians to ever understand and appreciate the entire aspiration in the dilemma. It was all about "them" (the Arab) and what they get out of it. And no one can actually answer that question to the satisfaction of the Arab-Palestinian.

No matter which set of datum I use, form whatever source, the outcome is alway the same. In 1947, the population ratio was about 2:1 in favor of the Arab and the land ownership was overwhelmingly in favor of the Arab. The concern was beyond the understanding and compassion of the Arab-Palestinian. They wanted what they saw as theirs and they were going to kill for it. "The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child." (Tyranny of the Majority).

AGAIN, I cannot answer your question. Any answer I could give would be well beyond that which can be assimilated by the Arab-Palestinian as a part of the species that preserves itself.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians did "nothing" to deserve this.

Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.

You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.

You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.

Lol he never said any of that. You are just putting words in his mouth. Your definition of self defence differs from the global meaning

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In part, you are correct. The Armistice Lines are not international borders in the respect that they are mutually agreed. Armistice Lines are temporarily imposed; and treated similarly to borders.

Indeed the '67 borders are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not to be borders. These lines ran along the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

They also ran along the international borders between Palestine and Lebanon, Palestine and Syria, and Palestine and Egypt. None of those armistice lines were ever borders.

(COMMENT)

Yes, and they are likely to stay that way for many years; given the unreconcilable differences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.

The external interference was on the part of the Arab League. There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.

You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description. There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.

You don't believe they have the right to territorial integrity.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that. In fact I argue for it. Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.

You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves. They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution. The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it. They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy. The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate. This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.

This is not self defense. The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks. The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.

(COMMENT)

Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

 

[toastman]

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Just a minor "timeline" reminder.

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

I appreciate that the moral dilemma baffles you...The answer is simple...No one in Any Human Culture would agree to their dispossession for no Just reason...

The only answer is acceptance, and unlike what you posted, the Arabs have agreed to Israel's existence, acceptance and trade...All Israel has to do is sign a peace and end the occupation to the 67 borders.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Black Hand was founded in 1930 and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.

The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Just a minor "timeline" reminder.

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

(COMMENT)

The Palestinian Black Hand was founded in 1930 and led until his death in 1935 by Syrian-born Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; hero and Martyr of HAMAS.

The Irgun was a Jewish paramilitary group that operated in Mandate Palestine between 1931 and 1948.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian started terrorist and paramilitary operations before the Jewish communities formed a response.
Most Respectfully,
R

If invaders had not come to create a State from their lands, there would not have been any terrorism...

Rocco, you sound as though the creation of Israel by Colonial Western Powers was a given and justified fiat.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I believe that much of this is exaggerated, in favor of the Hostile Arab Palestinian.

Indeed, The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came and ran them out of their homes at the point of a gun.

And you don't believe they have the right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

The infiltration of External Arab Forces into the Region by the Arab League, many months before the war, had a consequence.

The external interference was on the part of the Arab League. There were no external forces infiltrating into the region or rushing to support the Jewish defense of the Homeland after the 15 May Declaration of Independence.

You don't believe they have the right to sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The right to sovereignty and the right of self-determination are two different things; hence two different word description. There was a Recommendation on the table for a Jewish State and an Arab State. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), rather than move forward and become involved in the Implementation Process, exercised their right of self-determination by rejecting the plan for a sovereign Arab State.


(COMMENT)

I did not say that. In fact I argue for it. Territory integrity came into play when the Jewish Agency declared independence in MAY '48, and the the phony Arab Higher Committee tried to declare independence over the same territory four months later in September '48.

You don't believe they have the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves. They are, by their own admission, conducting aggressive operations against Israel to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State which the UN authorized, help establish, and implemented under resolution. The HoAP segment of the Palestinians, don't recognize the UN Resolution of 1947, or anything derived from it. They don't recognize the State of Israel, or their legitimacy. The Jihadist and Fedayeen have sworn to participate and conduct hostile operations to liberate all of the former mandate. This is not self defense but political-military offensive operations by paramilitary and terrorist forces.

This is not self defense. The current occupation is a quarantine and containment effort to protect the people of the State of Israel from the demonstrated threat of genocide by the HoAP, through conventional warfare, criminal activity, terrorist operations and suicide attacks. The HoAP are currently allowing terrorist training to be conducted in the open, in camps that are inside the 1988 State of Palestine.

Sorry, Rocco, I can't support your position.

(COMMENT)

Like I said, there was no reasonable expectation that you would.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy deflection, Batman!

How about making a serious attempt at addressing my post.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Remembering of course, there was no "dispossession" of land, merely a change in sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The issue of "dispossession" of land has not really been discussed (very much - for what it is), although it is often confused with the unintended outcome of the Arab manipulation of aggression and military engagement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Merely a change of sovereignty by an invading European backed power. Invaders creating a forced sovereignty by terrorism (Irgun) creating mass hysteria on civilians to make them flee...

Nice cup of English Tea...

You need to read up some more on the event before Israel declared independence . Read up on the Arab revolt and the many attacks perpetrated by Arabs on Jews. I say this because you act as if The Arabs never commited massacres during this timeline

There were atrocities on both sides, by the invaders and defenders. Not surprising.