Is Israel the Same as South Africa?

[toastman]

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence.

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

Palestine was not (and I still don't believe is now) a country in 1948. Why can you not accept this incredibly simple fact ????

If Palestine was already a country, then what the hell was the partition plan for ???

The whole point of the 1947 partition plan was to CREATE a country for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

However, in this case, the creation of the State of Israel was affected by the right of self-determination. They declared independence.

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

Palestine was not (and I still don't believe is now) a country in 1948. Why can you not accept this incredibly simple fact ????

If Palestine was already a country, then what the hell was the partition plan for ???

The whole point of the 1947 partition plan was to CREATE a country for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

As it says. The partition plan was partition Palestine and give half of it to Israel.

 

[toastman]

You have never posted anything that states how foreigners going to another country with the stated goal of taking over that country claim self determination.

Got a link?

Palestine was not (and I still don't believe is now) a country in 1948. Why can you not accept this incredibly simple fact ????

If Palestine was already a country, then what the hell was the partition plan for ???

The whole point of the 1947 partition plan was to CREATE a country for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

As it says. The partition plan was partition Palestine and give half of it to Israel.

You are saying Palestine became a country even though they rejected the proposal??
If Palestine was an actual country, then the British obviously not suggest it be divided in two. That would be ridiculous . It was a territory. I don't understand why you cannot accept that.

Now look what you did, we were having a good debate, and you made us go backwards

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine was not (and I still don't believe is now) a country in 1948. Why can you not accept this incredibly simple fact ????

If Palestine was already a country, then what the hell was the partition plan for ???

The whole point of the 1947 partition plan was to CREATE a country for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

As it says. The partition plan was partition Palestine and give half of it to Israel.

You are saying Palestine became a country even though they rejected the proposal??
If Palestine was an actual country, then the British obviously not suggest it be divided in two. That would be ridiculous . It was a territory. I don't understand why you cannot accept that.

Now look what you did, we were having a good debate, and you made us go backwards

Indeed, and they would not divide Palestinian land without the approval of the Palestinians.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Just two points.

The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

(PERSONAL OPINION)

I don't think this is a clear case at all. But that is just my opinion.

I believe that it (defending Arab Palestinians) was merely an excuse. It is apparent to me that five Arab countries decided that they did not like the UN solution (Partition)[GA/RES/181(II)]. So they decided to defy the UN and militarily overwhelm Israel and take by force what they could not win in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the task was easier said than done.

Article 2

The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​

SOURCE: Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression

You can believe what you want.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Just two points.

The next day, regular troops of the neighbouring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

(PERSONAL OPINION)

I don't think this is a clear case at all. But that is just my opinion.

I believe that it (defending Arab Palestinians) was merely an excuse. It is apparent to me that five Arab countries decided that they did not like the UN solution (Partition)[GA/RES/181(II)]. So they decided to defy the UN and militarily overwhelm Israel and take by force what they could not win in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the task was easier said than done.

Article 2

The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​

SOURCE: Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression

You can believe what you want.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting Israeli forces in Palestine can be nothing but defensive.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Just two points.

The Arab states entered Palestine to assist the Palestinians in Palestine.

That is a clear cut case of defense.

(PERSONAL OPINION)

I don't think this is a clear case at all. But that is just my opinion.

I believe that it (defending Arab Palestinians) was merely an excuse. It is apparent to me that five Arab countries decided that they did not like the UN solution (Partition)[GA/RES/181(II)]. So they decided to defy the UN and militarily overwhelm Israel and take by force what they could not win in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the task was easier said than done.

Article 2

The first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression although the Security Council may, in conformity with the Charter, conclude that a determination that an act of aggression has been committed would not be justified in the light of other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the acts concerned or their consequences are not of sufficient gravity.​

SOURCE: Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression

You can believe what you want.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting Israeli forces in Palestine can be nothing but defensive.

Completely false. How can it be defensive when 5 Arab armies much attack a tiny army that is like 2 years old.
The Arab armies were on the offense, not defense. This is not one of those issues that is a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

Some defensive war it was

 

[toastman]

Then there are these documented quotes:


Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict



“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state... But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.”
- Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder


“In demanding the return of the Palestinian refugees the Arabs mean their return as masters, not slaves, or to put it more clearly – the intention is the extermination of Israel.”
- Salah al-Din, Egyptian Foreign Minister
(Al-Misri, Egypt, October 11, 1949; quoted in Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO [Shapolsky Books, 1989], p. 239)


“I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre or the Crusader wars.”
- Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League
(Akhbar al-Yom, Egypt, October 11, 1947; quoted in David Barnett and Efraim Karsh, “Azzam’s Genocidal Threat,” Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2011)

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Just two points.


(PERSONAL OPINION)

I don't think this is a clear case at all. But that is just my opinion.

I believe that it (defending Arab Palestinians) was merely an excuse. It is apparent to me that five Arab countries decided that they did not like the UN solution (Partition)[GA/RES/181(II)]. So they decided to defy the UN and militarily overwhelm Israel and take by force what they could not win in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, the task was easier said than done.



You can believe what you want.

Most Respectfully,
R

Fighting Israeli forces in Palestine can be nothing but defensive.

Completely false. How can it be defensive when 5 Arab armies much attack a tiny army that is like 2 years old.
The Arab armies were on the offense, not defense. This is not one of those issues that is a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

Some defensive war it was

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

 

[toastman]

Fighting Israeli forces in Palestine can be nothing but defensive.

Completely false. How can it be defensive when 5 Arab armies much attack a tiny army that is like 2 years old.
The Arab armies were on the offense, not defense. This is not one of those issues that is a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

Some defensive war it was

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

Call it whatever you want Tinmore, but yes, they were defending themselves against the hostile Arab armies.
You have got to be the only person in the world who believes that the 5 Arab armies were on the defensive side lol. Look at the size of their countries, the size of their armies, the amount of infantry and amount of weaponry they had compared to the Jews.

 

[toastman]

Oh, and yes, the Israelis were defending themselves against foreigners, the word you love to use. Who gave the right to those 5 countries to invade ???

 

[P F Tinmore]

Completely false. How can it be defensive when 5 Arab armies much attack a tiny army that is like 2 years old.
The Arab armies were on the offense, not defense. This is not one of those issues that is a matter of opinion. This is a fact.

Some defensive war it was

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

Call it whatever you want Tinmore, but yes, they were defending themselves against the hostile Arab armies.
You have got to be the only person in the world who believes that the 5 Arab armies were on the defensive side lol. Look at the size of their countries, the size of their armies, the amount of infantry and amount of weaponry they had compared to the Jews.

Irrelevant!

Israel forces were inside Palestine.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh, and yes, the Israelis were defending themselves against foreigners, the word you love to use. Who gave the right to those 5 countries to invade ???

The Arab armies entered Palestine. How is that aggressive?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go.

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the IDF was in Israel that had Declared Independence. Defending itself from Arab attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Oh, and yes, the Israelis were defending themselves against foreigners, the word you love to use. Who gave the right to those 5 countries to invade ???

The Arab armies entered Palestine. How is that aggressive?

What was their intent ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go.

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the IDF was in Israel that had Declared Independence. Defending itself from Arab attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where was that?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go.

Israeli forces were inside Palestine defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

Yes, the IDF was in Israel that had Declared Independence. Defending itself from Arab attack.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't know how you put up with Tinmore as much as you do. You have the patience of a ....something... I'm actually not sure how the sentence ends...Saint maybe ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh, and yes, the Israelis were defending themselves against foreigners, the word you love to use. Who gave the right to those 5 countries to invade ???

The Arab armies entered Palestine. How is that aggressive?

What was their intent ?

To defend the Palestinians inside Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

This is insane.

Oh, and yes, the Israelis were defending themselves against foreigners, the word you love to use. Who gave the right to those 5 countries to invade ???

The Arab armies entered Palestine. How is that aggressive?

(COMMENT)

I'm done with your circular disinformation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

The Arab armies entered Palestine. How is that aggressive?

What was their intent ?

To defend the Palestinians inside Palestine.

That's a very vague way of saying it

How did they plan on defending the Palestinian Arabs ? (They were not referred to as Palestinians back then)