Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(COMMENT)Honestly your constant bullshit analysis is that of an idiot because the Palestinians are the most educated and secular of all the Arabs, Creating an economy with the boot of Israel crushing their necks to the ground and yet surviving under these conditions is a miracle while Israel's success can be traced to the incredible flow of American/Jewish money.
You have no point.
P F Tinmore, pbel, Billo_Really, et al,
Actually, you are wrong.
(COMMENT)Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.P F Tinmore, et al,
Now, did I say that? I did not.
(COMMENT)"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.
And you believe that self defense is illegal.
I said two very important things:
Most Respectfully,
- This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
- That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
R
And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Rocco, you are a hoot.
As linked, the "legal entity" status was opened and publicly explained by the Mandatory and the UN in a joint Release (Press Release PAL/138) on the Successor Government.
- Palestine was a 'legal entity' but it is not a "sovereign state."
- Citizenship was to the Mandate Territory, not a sovereign country. From 1922 to 1948, Palestine was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
- International Borders for Territory formerly under Mandate were relevant to the Allied Power and used for their administration.
- The Citizenship was to the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order. It was not to some undefined Arab State.
- The "territory of Palestine" was an entity "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Allied Powers and NOT by a self-determination of any Arab people.
When the Jewish People Declared Independence, the remainder of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied would have been a UN legal entity. However, the pol-mil error of the Arab League changed the plan thru Arab interference. The West Bank fell under Jordanian authority and the Gaza Strip fell under Egyptian authority. The remainder fell under Israeli control as outline by the multiple Armistice agreements.
If there is a hoot; it flew by me.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, pbel, Billo_Really, et al,
Actually, you are wrong.
(COMMENT)Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.P F Tinmore, et al,
Now, did I say that? I did not.
(COMMENT)"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.
And you believe that self defense is illegal.
I said two very important things:
Most Respectfully,
- This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
- That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
R
And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Rocco, you are a hoot.
As linked, the "legal entity" status was opened and publicly explained by the Mandatory and the UN in a joint Release (Press Release PAL/138) on the Successor Government.
- Palestine was a 'legal entity' but it is not a "sovereign state."
- Citizenship was to the Mandate Territory, not a sovereign country. From 1922 to 1948, Palestine was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
- International Borders for Territory formerly under Mandate were relevant to the Allied Power and used for their administration.
- The Citizenship was to the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order. It was not to some undefined Arab State.
- The "territory of Palestine" was an entity "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Allied Powers and NOT by a self-determination of any Arab people.
When the Jewish People Declared Independence, the remainder of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied would have been a UN legal entity. However, the pol-mil error of the Arab League changed the plan thru Arab interference. The West Bank fell under Jordanian authority and the Gaza Strip fell under Egyptian authority. The remainder fell under Israeli control as outline by the multiple Armistice agreements.
If there is a hoot; it flew by me.
Most Respectfully,
R
That is quite a song and dance there, Rocco.P F Tinmore, pbel, Billo_Really, et al,
Actually, you are wrong.
(COMMENT)Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.P F Tinmore, et al,
Now, did I say that? I did not.
(COMMENT)"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.
And you believe that self defense is illegal.
I said two very important things:
Most Respectfully,
- This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
- That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
R
And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Rocco, you are a hoot.
As linked, the "legal entity" status was opened and publicly explained by the Mandatory and the UN in a joint Release (Press Release PAL/138) on the Successor Government.
- Palestine was a 'legal entity' but it is not a "sovereign state."
- Citizenship was to the Mandate Territory, not a sovereign country. From 1922 to 1948, Palestine was defined by the Palestine Order in Council as the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."
- International Borders for Territory formerly under Mandate were relevant to the Allied Power and used for their administration.
- The Citizenship was to the "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order. It was not to some undefined Arab State.
- The "territory of Palestine" was an entity "within such boundaries as may be fixed by" the Allied Powers and NOT by a self-determination of any Arab people.
When the Jewish People Declared Independence, the remainder of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied would have been a UN legal entity. However, the pol-mil error of the Arab League changed the plan thru Arab interference. The West Bank fell under Jordanian authority and the Gaza Strip fell under Egyptian authority. The remainder fell under Israeli control as outline by the multiple Armistice agreements.
If there is a hoot; it flew by me.
Most Respectfully,
R
Spot on.They should fully annex all territories captured in 1967.
End of moral dilemma.
1) it wasn't imoralZionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.
There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.
I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
Whatever you are taking must be illegal.Honestly your constant bullshit analysis is that of an idiot because the Palestinians are the most educated and secular of all the Arabs, Creating an economy with the boot of Israel crushing their necks to the ground and yet surviving under these conditions is a miracle while Israel's success can be traced to the incredible flow of American/Jewish money.pbel, et al,
You make my point. This has nothing to do with "racism."
(COMMENT)Unemployable Palestinians you say? Frankly you're just a jumble of racism.
Maybe, I should have added the enormous mix of "underemployment" that is the companion to "unemployable." This is about a focus on a health economy, where the government works hand-in-hand with the venture capitalist, investors and entrepreneur that bring new businesses online and gradually erode both underemployment and open opportunities for those that are educated yet unemployable.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the constant complaint of "racism" from those that would rather degrade the economy in favor of funneling more revenue into the conflict (hostilities); and way from re-investment into the nation.
Everyday is an opportunity for the Arab Palestinians to turn their downward spiraling nation around and develop some real nation building programs. They just don't have the little gray cells to make it happen and, instead, want to blame everyone but themselves for their self-generating misfortune. But then, if this is how they choose to exercise their right of self-determination; all we can do is watch them shoot themselves in the foot and slowly bleed to death.
Most Respectfully,
R
You have no point.
You mean they were part of the British empire?Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.P F Tinmore, et al,
Now, did I say that? I did not.
(COMMENT)"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.
And you believe that self defense is illegal.
I said two very important things:
- This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
- That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Most Respectfully,
R
And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Rocco, you are a hoot.
Certainly not.You mean they were part of the British empire?Palestine is a country defined by international borders. The Palestinians were the habitual residents of Palestine and they held Palestinian citizenship.P F Tinmore, et al,
Now, did I say that? I did not.
(COMMENT)"Delegation solemnly declares that it is the unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country.
And you believe that self defense is illegal.
I said two very important things:
- This was the equivalency of a declaration of war.
- That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Most Respectfully,
R
And you say That the territory WAS NOT their country to defend.
Rocco, you are a hoot.
Like Marah?The arab governments grant their "citizens" virtually no rights.
There is no due process. Woman have even less rights than no rights (I am being sarcastic)
Why would anyone wish a people be under an arab government dictatorship?
personally, I think you're full of bull, but I will give you a chance to prove your numbers by some documentation with verifiable numbers per capita contributions to Israel's and Palestine's Economies from outside sources.pbel, et al,
The Palestinians have more contributions, from more Donor Nations, made for a longer time, then any single forum of people in the world.
(COMMENT)Honestly your constant bullshit analysis is that of an idiot because the Palestinians are the most educated and secular of all the Arabs, Creating an economy with the boot of Israel crushing their necks to the ground and yet surviving under these conditions is a miracle while Israel's success can be traced to the incredible flow of American/Jewish money.
You have no point.
No one is hold down the Arab Palestinians; except themselves.
Most Respectfully,
R
1) it wasn't imoralZionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.
There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.
I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Of course it does not help that Israel has fleets of equipment and bombs and missiles for the purpose of destroying anything and everything Palestinian.personally, I think you're full of bull, but I will give you a chance to prove your numbers by some documentation with verifiable numbers per capita contributions to Israel's and Palestine's Economies from outside sources.pbel, et al,
The Palestinians have more contributions, from more Donor Nations, made for a longer time, then any single forum of people in the world.
(COMMENT)Honestly your constant bullshit analysis is that of an idiot because the Palestinians are the most educated and secular of all the Arabs, Creating an economy with the boot of Israel crushing their necks to the ground and yet surviving under these conditions is a miracle while Israel's success can be traced to the incredible flow of American/Jewish money.
You have no point.
No one is hold down the Arab Palestinians; except themselves.
Most Respectfully,
R
Link?1) it wasn't imoralZionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.
There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.
I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
Link?1) it wasn't imoralZionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.
There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.
I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
This is not a religious conflict.Link?1) it wasn't imoralZionism is Fascism according to Albert Einstein. I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Alon Ben-Meir Become a fan
Senior Fellow, Center for Global Affairs, NYU
Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I have long maintained that Israel's occupation of the West Bank defies the moral principle behind the creation of the state. Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu's assertion, the occupation erodes rather than buttresses Israel's national security and cannot be justified on either security or moral grounds. Unless Israel embraces a new moral path, no one can prevent it from unravelling from within only to become a pariah state that has lost its soul, wantonly abandoning the cherished dreams of its founding fathers.
There are four ethical theories--Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-based, and religious--that demonstrate the lack of moral foundation in the continuing occupation, which imposes upon Israelis the responsibility to bring it to a decisive end.
I want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
Here you go, Sparky.
Teachers Guide - Muslims | Teacher Center | FRONTLINE | PBS
This is not a religious conflict.Link?1) it wasn't imoralI want a safe-haven for the Jews but how do you reconcile the immoral annexation of the indigenous people's homeland?
Arabs are indigenous to Israel? LOL!
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
Here you go, Sparky.
Teachers Guide - Muslims | Teacher Center | FRONTLINE | PBS
No, just irrelevant.This is not a religious conflict.Link?1) it wasn't imoral
2) It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
Here you go, Sparky.
Teachers Guide - Muslims | Teacher Center | FRONTLINE | PBS
Was my link too high-level for you?
No, just irrelevant.This is not a religious conflict.Link?It wasn't their homeland. Their homeland is either Jordan or Egypt.
Or even further away.
Here you go, Sparky.
Teachers Guide - Muslims | Teacher Center | FRONTLINE | PBS
Was my link too high-level for you?
(COMMENT)That is quite a song and dance there, Rocco.
Palestine is a non self governing territory under foreign rule and always has been.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
