Israel's Lies

[fncceo]

The zionist Israeli pukes have created a gigantic lie to explain how their theft of other people's land wasn't really theft. ...

The Jews have been in the land of Israel that was promised to them by G-d, since before Israel had a king.

Further, they didn't 'steal' the land. The Arabs left when the attacking Arab armies threatened to kill them if they stayed. The Arabs that did not leave, are still in Israel with their property. The ones that left Israel when Israel needed to defend itself, lost their property.

If I was in your country, and fled to the country of an invading army, your country would take my property.

Israel is fertile ground.

It wasn't before The Jews made it bloom.

View attachment 369364

That's not true. A Palestinian friend used to describe his grandfathers olive groves.

View attachment 372636
That above... did not happen under the Arabs. The Bible says that the Jews will make the desert bloom. And it did.

Was there an isolated Olive grove somewhere? Sure. Keep in mind, that this was historic Jewish lands, stolen by Romans, exiled around the world, decimated by the Ottomans, and then returned by divine providence today.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

Interestingly, there are a number of Sheiks that admit that Islam supports Israel. Because of course, it does.

The Qur'an and the Land of Israel

www.templemount.org

My personal favorite, direct from the Qur'an

If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return.… (5:54)

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

There has never been a time since the US became a country that Jews have not lived in New York State. Does that give them the right to dispossess everyone else, drive them into a concentration camp Gaza II, and establish an apartheid state in NY? Hmm..now that I think about it...

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Were the Jews living in New York 2,000 years ago? Was New York their ancient homeland for thousands of years? Was New York promised to the Jews in the Bible?

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Um..... Yeah. He did. That is exactly what G-d said would happen in Torah. That's what the prophets said would happen. That's even what Jesus himself said would happen. *AND*.... the regathering was predicted in Isaiah 11, and other places.

So the answer is..... yes. G-d willed that the Romans conquer Israel as punishment for breaking the promise made in the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy.

Everything that has happened to the Jews, and to the land of Israel, has happened exactly as G-d said it would, as predicted in the Bible. Everything.

If God says "xyz" will happen, then "xyz" will happen? If that's true then how can God get angry at the Jews and turn his face away from them for being disobedient? Aren't they just doing what God already foretold?

Also, there is something objectionable about the worship of a God who agrees to make you the Master Race as long as you are sufficiently slavish in your worship of him.

Or, G-d wisely choose the master race as the only once he desires to worship him.

Can you blame him?

 

[Street Juice]

Or, G-d wisely choose the master race as the only once he desires to worship him.

Can you blame him?

I'd say God has poor taste in races.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

What part of my post was incorrect?

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

What part of my post was incorrect?

The incorrect part.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Every "State" has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other "State;" that includes the entirety.

Israel's Lies

RE: Israel's Lies ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al, BLUF: Yes, that is a common theme with you. ◈ Israel did NOT invade the territory of another state. ◈ Israel did not fire the first shot. ◈ Israel did not annexation by the use of force of "the territory of another State." There you go back to...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

What part of my post was incorrect?

The incorrect part.

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

What part of my post was incorrect?

The incorrect part.

More proof that we need a stupid post button.

You earned it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well known by whom? Another of your unsupported comments.

It is reported all over the place that Israel took control of 78% of Palestine in the 1948 war. That was when Israel occupied Palestine.

When, and under what circumstances, did Israel acquire legal title to that land?

 

[rylah]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well, it's no different than saying Leningrad "occupied" St. Petersburg.

 

[rylah]

Another one.

Five Arab armies attacked Israel in 1948.

Too disorganized to be called armies?

Indeed it was not much of a war but Israel used it as an excuse to steal land.

5 disorganized mobs lose to Israel.
Not the last time disorganized Muslims will lose, eh?

Which leads us to another Israeli lie.

The five Arab armies lost to Israel.

What's the opposite of defeated Israel?

Duck!

Darn ducks, beating the disorganized Muslim rabble.....over and over and over.

So how big is the country of Palestine going to be?

Lichtenstein? Smaller?

The lie is that the Arab armies lost to Israel in 1948.

The fighting ended by the UN Security Council calling for an armistice. Nobody lost that war.

The fighting ended by the UN Security Council calling for an armistice.

We agree, the Arabs didn't win and Israel didn't lose.

The point is that the 5 Arab countries did not lose.

What did Lebanon lose?
What did Syria lose?
What did Jordan lose?
What did Iraq lose?
What did Egypt lose?

What?

Let's get back to Israel's two handed whopper. The Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.

Are you going to believe legal UN documents or Israel's worldwide bullshit machine?

Let’s go over your claim step by step:

-You claimed Israel did not win the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
-I posted links that CLEARLY state that Israel DID win the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
-You continue to post your claim without any evidence.

Oh really?

What did Israel win from:
Lebanon?
Syria?
Iraq?
Jordan?
Egypt?

Show me a link where it says that Israel has to ‘win’ something from other countries in order to win the war.

But as usual, you are asking he wrong question. Ask this:
What were Israel’s goals for the wear and didn’t they meet them ?
How about Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and and Lebanon??
Not to mention, you have yet to post a link backing up your claim , while I have posted several.

Show me a link where it says that Israel has to ‘win’ something from other countries in order to win the war.

So, Israel didn't win anything.

I have said that for years.

Except for independence,

but keep telling yourself that... serves that self fulfilling cycle.

Arabs lost their entire armies and numerous wars over not being able to come to terms with defeat.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is reported all over the place that Israel took control of 78% of Palestine in the 1948 war. That was when Israel occupied Palestine.

How much did they control before they kicked the asses of 5 Arab armies?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And then you'll have to constantly kick Muslim ass and listen to their endless whining.

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well known by whom? Another of your unsupported comments.

It is reported all over the place that Israel took control of 78% of Palestine in the 1948 war. That was when Israel occupied Palestine.

When, and under what circumstances, did Israel acquire legal title to that land?

It is reported all over the place that the Israelis liberated Palestine from the Islamist occupation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I am very glad you understand. The Arab Palestinians are not impacted by this at all.

Every "State" has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other "State;" that includes the entirety.

Israel's Lies

RE: Israel's Lies ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al, BLUF: Yes, that is a common theme with you. ◈ Israel did NOT invade the territory of another state. ◈ Israel did not fire the first shot. ◈ Israel did not annexation by the use of force of "the territory of another State." There you go back to...

www.usmessageboard.com

(COMMENT)

Since → Israel did not intervene in the internal or external affairs of any other "State" but that Israel is a sovereign state, you can see that Israel is not at fault here.

(a) The question of a permanent population is still in question; ​

(b) The Arab Palestinian does not have a defined territory in which they can trace sovereign control; with the possible exception of Area "A" and the Gaza Strip; ​

(c) There is no one government that can claim sovereign control over any disputed territory; ​

(d) The capacity to enter into relations with the other states is a question for the other states. The Arab Palestinian can sign any document. Whether it represents a reasonable expectation of following that agreement is another matter entirely.​

And I am not even sure that the Ramallah Government is a signatory in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (CCPR) (Israel is a signatory.) I don't know what message the Ramallah Government is trying to send - not a signatory.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well known by whom? Another of your unsupported comments.

It is reported all over the place that Israel took control of 78% of Palestine in the 1948 war. That was when Israel occupied Palestine.

When, and under what circumstances, did Israel acquire legal title to that land?

Where did you read that Israel had to acquire a title for anything ?

 

[Hollie]

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How can Israel win territory when it didn't win the war?

How did it not win the war if it won territory and the Arab armies ran away defeated?

And besides, it is illegal to acquire territory through the threat or use of force.

LOL! Maybe you should cry to your mommy?

She'll get back the land for you that Israel acquired every time they beat Arab armies.

You are bouncing around like a football trying to avoid the issues.

The issue is that Arab armies invaded and lost and Israel held more territory after the invasion than before.

The big losers were the Arabs who decided they didn't want a state next to Israel.
How did that work out for the "Palestinians"?
Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?
Will they end up with 20% of a loaf? Less? None?

Would they have been better off peacefully accepting half a loaf in 1948?

What would we say in the US if the UN wanted to give half of our country to colonial settlers?

Palestine didn't belong to the Arabs after WWI.

Try again?

Link?

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, the empire's remaining Arab provinces were assigned by the newly created League of Nations to Britain and France as mandates, with Britain taking responsibility for Iraq, Palestine, and Transjordan, and France taking responsibility for Lebanon and Syria.

Read more: Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System - Century, Britain, Aden, and Provinces - JRank Articles Anticolonialism in Middle East - Ottoman Empire And The Mandate System

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations.[23] It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries.[24] The terms of the Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory detached from the Ottoman Empire to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. The treaty also let the States acquire, without payment, all the property and possessions of the Ottoman Empire situated within their territory.[25] The treaty provided that the League of Nations was responsible for establishing an arbital court to resolve disputes that might arise and stipulated that its decisions were final.

A disagreement regarding the legal status and the portion of the annuities to be paid by the "A" mandates was settled when an Arbitrator ruled that some of the mandates contained more than one State:The difficulty arises here how one is to regard the Asiatic countries under the British and French mandates. Iraq is a Kingdom in regard to which Great Britain has undertaken responsibilities equivalentto those of a Mandatory Power. Under the British mandate, Palestine and Transjordan have each an entirely separate organisation. We are, therefore, in the presence of three States sufficiently separate to be considered as distinct Parties. France has received a single mandate from the Council of the League of Nations, but in the countries subject to that mandate, one can distinguish two distinct States: Syria and the Lebanon, each State possessing its own constitution and a nationality clearly different from theother.

Mandate | Definition, System, & Facts

Mandate, an authorization granted by the League of Nations to a member nation to govern a former German or Turkish colony. After the defeat of Germany and Ottoman Turkey in World War I, their colonies, which were judged not yet ready to govern themselves, were distributed among the victorious...

www.britannica.com

So... we’re back to your nonsense claim the Treaty of Lausanne created your imagined “country of Pal’istan”

You can refute it if you like. This is a discussion board.

Correct, this is a discussion board. So you have yet to refute my posts, which contain links, that proves Israel won the 1948 war and that Israel has internationally recognized borders ....

It is well known when Israel occupied Palestine and that is where it ends.

Well known by whom? Another of your unsupported comments.

It is reported all over the place that Israel took control of 78% of Palestine in the 1948 war. That was when Israel occupied Palestine.

When, and under what circumstances, did Israel acquire legal title to that land?

Israel certainly did acquire a title. Here it is:
'National Homeland of the Jewish People'

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Israel's Lies
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I am very glad you understand. The Arab Palestinians are not impacted by this at all.

Every "State" has the duty to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other "State;" that includes the entirety.

Israel's Lies

RE: Israel's Lies ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al, BLUF: Yes, that is a common theme with you. ◈ Israel did NOT invade the territory of another state. ◈ Israel did not fire the first shot. ◈ Israel did not annexation by the use of force of "the territory of another State." There you go back to...

www.usmessageboard.com

(COMMENT)

Since → Israel did not intervene in the internal or external affairs of any other "State" but that Israel is a sovereign state, you can see that Israel is not at fault here.

(a) The question of a permanent population is still in question; ​

(b) The Arab Palestinian does not have a defined territory in which they can trace sovereign control; with the possible exception of Area "A" and the Gaza Strip; ​

(c) There is no one government that can claim sovereign control over any disputed territory; ​

(d) The capacity to enter into relations with the other states is a question for the other states. The Arab Palestinian can sign any document. Whether it represents a reasonable expectation of following that agreement is another matter entirely.​

And I am not even sure that the Ramallah Government is a signatory in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (CCPR) (Israel is a signatory.) I don't know what message the Ramallah Government is trying to send - not a signatory.



Most Respectfully,
R

Here you go again going back to Israel's talking point that there is no Palestine.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go again going back to Israel's talking point that there is no Palestine.

There was a Palestine? When? Where? What was their currency? Exchange rates? Interest rates?

Top 3 government officials?

 

[Andylusion]

The zionist Israeli pukes have created a gigantic lie to explain how their theft of other people's land wasn't really theft. ...

The Jews have been in the land of Israel that was promised to them by G-d, since before Israel had a king.

Further, they didn't 'steal' the land. The Arabs left when the attacking Arab armies threatened to kill them if they stayed. The Arabs that did not leave, are still in Israel with their property. The ones that left Israel when Israel needed to defend itself, lost their property.

If I was in your country, and fled to the country of an invading army, your country would take my property.

Israel is fertile ground.

It wasn't before The Jews made it bloom.

View attachment 369364

That's not true. A Palestinian friend used to describe his grandfathers olive groves.

View attachment 372636
That above... did not happen under the Arabs. The Bible says that the Jews will make the desert bloom. And it did.

Was there an isolated Olive grove somewhere? Sure. Keep in mind, that this was historic Jewish lands, stolen by Romans, exiled around the world, decimated by the Ottomans, and then returned by divine providence today.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

Interestingly, there are a number of Sheiks that admit that Islam supports Israel. Because of course, it does.

The Qur'an and the Land of Israel

www.templemount.org

My personal favorite, direct from the Qur'an

If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works; unto God shall you return.… (5:54)

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Again, there has never been a time since King David, that Jews have not lived in the land of Israel.

There has never been a time since the US became a country that Jews have not lived in New York State. Does that give them the right to dispossess everyone else, drive them into a concentration camp Gaza II, and establish an apartheid state in NY? Hmm..now that I think about it...

Hmmm... seems like G-d willed it. Given it happened.

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Were the Jews living in New York 2,000 years ago? Was New York their ancient homeland for thousands of years? Was New York promised to the Jews in the Bible?

Given the Romans conquered the Jews, seems like God willed that, too.

Um..... Yeah. He did. That is exactly what G-d said would happen in Torah. That's what the prophets said would happen. That's even what Jesus himself said would happen. *AND*.... the regathering was predicted in Isaiah 11, and other places.

So the answer is..... yes. G-d willed that the Romans conquer Israel as punishment for breaking the promise made in the Torah, the book of Deuteronomy.

Everything that has happened to the Jews, and to the land of Israel, has happened exactly as G-d said it would, as predicted in the Bible. Everything.

If God says "xyz" will happen, then "xyz" will happen? If that's true then how can God get angry at the Jews and turn his face away from them for being disobedient? Aren't they just doing what God already foretold?

Your parents tell you, that if you stay out past 11 PM, then you'll be grounded.

If you stay out too late, then you are grounded. If you don't, then you are not.

G-d told the Jews that if they obeyed his commands, that he would bless them.

G-d also told the Jews, if they engaged in evil, and turned away from G-d, he would allow punishment against them.

When the Jews followed the law, they were blessed. When they turned away, they were punished.

It's not that difficult of a concept.