I will not Bow!

[Hossfly]

Start war with Jew.
Lose war.
Jew stole from you.
Huh?

You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
That Jew is gone.

Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars? $40 billion?

Bernie didn't get away withit. Unlike Herr und Frau Arafart.

 

[Hossfly]

Start war with Jew.
Lose war.
Jew stole from you.
Huh?

You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
That Jew is gone.

Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars? $40 billion?

But, Herr Weil Ich Weiss, Arabs also have stolen money in the U.S. and elsewhere; and if they could have gotten away with it, they would have stolen just as much as Bernie Madoff. By the way, off the top of your head, how much money do you think Arafat stole from his people? His wife must have laughed all the way to the bank.

You beat me to the punch.

 

[toastman]

Start war with Jew.
Lose war.
Jew stole from you.
Huh?

You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
That Jew is gone.

Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars? $40 billion?

What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?

 

[Victory67]

Start war with Jew.
Lose war.
Jew stole from you.
Huh?

You got too accustomed to the Jew who would take sh!t.
That Jew is gone.

Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars? $40 billion?

What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?

He said Jews don't steal.

I proved him wrong.

 

[pbel]

Don't worry, Pbel, those who know you from before don't think you are actually worried about the Arabs. You never had any comments to say when you could have discussed the Middle East in general. The only reason you are piping up here is because the Jews are involved. I don't know who you think you are fooling except others with the same mind set as you have.

Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.

Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it. If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers by other Arabs. This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.

Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.

This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land belonged to someone else.

America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.

If you're an American, you should care about America like me.

 

[Victory67]

Could someone tell me what the topic of this thread is?

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Well this is not always true.


(COMMENT)

There are different kinds of Sovereignty and differing views.



Sovereignty is the supreme authority, especially over a state; differing form independence or the right to self-government without interference from outside.

You are confusing the two terms: Sovereignty and Independence. Sovereignty can be acquired through peaceful means as well as force; or treaty. But independence is declared by the constituents.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh, I see...so if force is used then the ruled have the right to revolt...That's what we did in America, and that's what the Palestinians are doing today...

Sovereignty by force is Fascism.

Pbel, those who fought in the American Revolution didn't target civilians as the Palestinians do.

Tell that to the English Loyalists (Tories) who ran for their lives to Canada! Give us more Air!

 

[Sally]

Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.

Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it. If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers by other Arabs. This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.

Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.

This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land belonged to someone else.

America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.

If you're an American, you should care about America like me.

Stop trying to blame everything on Israel. There is terrorism all over the world, and it has nothing to do with Israel or the Jews. Pbel, you really are getting tiresome with your AIPAC shtick. You have been going on years and years with it as if that was the only lobby in America. You don't think the Saudis also have a lobby here in America? Why don't you worry more about what many Muslims say -- that they want a worldwide Caliphate. I realize you would make a fine Dhimmi, but I don't think most of us want that position.

 

[pbel]

Could someone tell me what the topic of this thread is?

People who are willing to die to regain their dignity have nothing to lose.

 

[Indeependent]

et al,

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.

And what did your Jordanians have?
Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.

 

[pbel]

et al,

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.

And what did your Jordanians have?
Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.

The issue is not about Jews in the Holocaust. What Human Being does not cry when viewing those horrible scenes? But what did the Palestinians have to do with German and yes European hate for Jews?

Nothing.

 

[Indeependent]

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

You know what cracks me up about how blind you "Palestinian" sympathizers are.
The Jews left Europe with NOTHING, leaving behind dead relatives.
And yet they were civilized enough, with world wide Jewish support, to handle what you guys thought would be an overwhelming attack.

And what did your Jordanians have?
Nothing...including no support from their "Brothers".
Such "Brothers" I wouldn't wish on anyone.

The issue is not about Jews in the Holocaust. What Human Being does not cry when viewing those horrible scenes? But what did the Palestinians have to do with German and yes European hate for Jews?

Nothing.

You must be seeing something I had no intention to state.
There's not a non-WBJ Arab in the world actually willing to do ANYTHING for them.

 

[toastman]

Who cares? You want to use your Jew hate card when you have nothing you offer to refute the message? Its old, cold and stupid reasoning, your forte.

Pbel, if it makes you feel good about yourself to think that you have fooled people in the past and are fooling them now about you actually caring about the Arabs, go for it. If you really cared about them, you would be keeping up with what is happening to them in other countries where the innocent Arabs, whether Christian or Muslims, are being killed in enormous numbers by other Arabs. This is so much worse than you want the readers to think is happening in the Israel/Palestine arena.

Look, Sally, if America was not targeted by Terrorism because we supply Israel the bombs they drop on Muslims, I would care a lot less. My concern is Terrorism killing Americans.

This conflict is killing Americans, and clearly Jews invading an area for a safe haven is an injustice because the land belonged to someone else.

America should be neutral but can't because AIPAC the American/Israeli lobby has bought off the entire US Congress with money contributions. Our Democracy has turned into an Oligarchy...rule by the one percent.

If you're an American, you should care about America like me.

So you want America to succumb to the demands of the Muslims to cut off Israel ??

LOL ! America doesn't take demands

 

[toastman]

et al,

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.

Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims

 

[toastman]

Israelis continue to steal land from Arab landowners.

And by the way, Bernie Madoff stole how many tens of billions of dollars? $40 billion?

What does Berni Madoff have to do with anything ?

He said Jews don't steal.

I proved him wrong.

Liar ! Where did he say that Jews don't steal??? What post

 

[Indeependent]

A Zionist yawned...All Zionists must leave!

 

[MHunterB]

The Palestinian Arabs won't regain their dignity until they stop allowing themselves to be the fall guys for the Arab League's ambitions for a judenrein ME.

Their "leadership" has been given the same choice over and over since the Mandate days - and they have chosen over and over to reject any 'relations' but war with an Israel of any size or shape.

Trust the fools to 'romanticize' that into some fantasy of the 'noble savage' .......

The world saw what Jordan (the Palestinian ethnic state) did with Jerusalem when they got the chance - thousands of Jerusalemites ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of graves in the Mt of Olives cemetery desecrated, their tombstones used to pave roads and line sewer ditches.

Noble savage.. your illiteracy and libel is the cause of war...Palestinians are the most educated Arabs on the peninsula....Abbas has a PhD along with thousands of others...

Actually, PB - you are the illiterate one, since you appear to be completely unaware of the entire 'noble savage' meme .....there was a reason for my putting ' around the term. I was not insinuating that Pals are ignorant : I was accusing the Arabists of falling prey to some 18th C 'enlightenment' sterotypes and romanticizing the Palestinians......

Next time I want to refer to terms used by the 18th C philosophes, I will be sure and spell everything out so an ignoramus like yourself might be able to realize to what I've referred. I note with amusement that a couple of other posters are so unfamiliar with the term that they bought your ignorant and false accusations.......

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

Ownership (property and land) is a much different thing than Sovereignty. It doesn't matter who owned the land; but rather, who had sovereignty over the land.

For 800 years, the Ottoman Empire had sovereignty (independent authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land). It was not an occupation.

After the Empire, the territory came under Mandate; again not occupation. Under the Mandate, the Mandatory had authority over a territory to rule and make laws over they land.

None of this changed the ownership of the land. P F Tinmore's assertion or implication that the Palestinian's owned the land has absolutely no relevance to who full powers of legislation (make laws) and of administration (authority over) the territory.

The key reason that this is so important to the Hostile Arab-Palestinian (HoAP) is because it fundamental to their argument that the land was taken from them. The land (ownership) was never taken from them (1920 - 1947) until the outbreak of general hostilities after the passage of the the Resolution 181(II) initiated by the HoAP and the Arab League (and even that is questionable).

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.

Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims

My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"

 

[toastman]

You are still trying to smokescreen the issue of who owns a country by the private ownership of pieces of land.

The French own France. The Brits own Britain. The Mexicans own Mexico. The Palestinians own Palestine. Any private ownership of land inside those defined territories is irrelevant. Even people who do not own any land are owners of their country collectively.

These are the people who have the inherent right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

Palestine is the poster child of illegal external interference.

Palestine was born under British occupation. A name change from occupation to mandate was meaningless. The LoN Covenant called for mandates to assist the people to independence.

Britain did not do that. It kicked the Palestinians to the curb and catered to the interests of foreigners at the behest of those foreigners. This was outside of their authority as the mandate. Britain violated the LoN Covenant, violated international legal norms, and violated the Palestinian's inalienable rights.

Violating a people's rights do not negate those rights. The Palestinians still have the right to self determination, without external interference, inside their defined territory.

So now the British occupied Palestine ?? Where did you read that.

Also, NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING you just said negates what Rocco said. It seems like whenever he beats you in an argument, you accuse him of smokescreening. He's not smokescreening, he is directly addressing the topi we are discussing and dismantling your claims

My claims are right there. What did he "dismantle?"

Everything you said