Israel's "Right to Exist"?

[P F Tinmore]

You mean like the Arab Muslim Israelis that comprise 20% of Israeli population, and live in Israel as Israeli citizens with the same exact rights as the Jewish, Christian, Bahaii, and Atheist Israelis?

No, I mean all those Palestinians who are not allowed to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

Have you forgotten that Winstaon Churchill said that the Arabs arrived in hordes from their surrounding impoversighed countries when Isreal had jobs for them? Perhaps in your mind all those who have crossed over our Southern boarder for jobs are indigenous to the U.S. Perhaps you can explain to us why the UN said that anyone in the reason for ONLY two years could be considered a refugee. Does that really make you indigenous to an area?


jt2

Churchill was a drunk, a racist, and a liar.

 

[Billo_Really]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it. that can be done after the negotiations.

and also, and for what it is worth, the arab league, which includes palestine, has recognised israel in the offer of a peace initiative.

lol...i'm not yelling at you. i'm just frustrated. i agree with you that both sides need to enter any negotiations on an equal basis.

i guess this "right to exist" thing is just out there with no rule, rhyme, reason or condition.

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

 

[P F Tinmore]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it. that can be done after the negotiations.

and also, and for what it is worth, the arab league, which includes palestine, has recognised israel in the offer of a peace initiative.

lol...i'm not yelling at you. i'm just frustrated. i agree with you that both sides need to enter any negotiations on an equal basis.

i guess this "right to exist" thing is just out there with no rule, rhyme, reason or condition.

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

Sure Israel exists. It exists as an occupation.

Does it have the "right" to do that?

 

[Hossfly]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it. that can be done after the negotiations.

and also, and for what it is worth, the arab league, which includes palestine, has recognised israel in the offer of a peace initiative.

lol...i'm not yelling at you. i'm just frustrated. i agree with you that both sides need to enter any negotiations on an equal basis.

i guess this "right to exist" thing is just out there with no rule, rhyme, reason or condition.

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

Sure Israel exists. It exists as an occupation.

Does it have the "right" to do that?

How about these would be occupiers?

Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations

 

[P F Tinmore]

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

Sure Israel exists. It exists as an occupation.

Does it have the "right" to do that?

How about these would be occupiers?

Hamas - Council on Foreign Relations

From your link:

In the summer of 2007, Hamas tensions with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a Fatah man, came to a head and Hamas routed Fatah supporters, killing many and sending others fleeing to the West Bank. The result was a de facto geographic division of Palestinian-held territory, with Hamas holding sway in Gaza and Fatah maintaining the internationally recognized Palestinian Authority government in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

I guess the CFR did not notice that Fatah lost the elections but still rules the West Bank.

Not a good source.

 

[patrickcaturday]

No one should recognize Israel's right to exist until they do the same for the Palestinian's.

You guys keep repearing the same crap like a dog chasing its tail. There was never a country called Palestine.

Hey Lipush;
I just noticed that in the picture that you are using for your sig. line that the Dome of the Rock is gone. Does that mean that in the rebuilt Jerusalem there will be no place for religious sites or architectual wonders that are not Jewish. Seems to me that if that is the case your new Jerusalem is racist.
Don't you think if you are going to destroy the Dome you are going to anger a whole lot of people, at least 1.4 billion. Does that concern you at all. I thought Israel had promised that it would preserve the holy sites of all the world's religions not just it's own. Care to respond.

 

[Roudy]

Unless you want to live in your homeland and you are not Jewish.

You mean like the Arab Muslim Israelis that comprise 20% of Israeli population, and live in Israel as Israeli citizens with the same exact rights as the Jewish, Christian, Bahaii, and Atheist Israelis?

No, I mean all those Palestinians who are not allowed to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

No such thing. 20 percent of Israel population consists of Arab Muslims who have the same rights as their fellow Jewish counterparts, and enjoy the highest standard of living in the middle east compared to other Arab countries.

True story....

 

[P F Tinmore]

You mean like the Arab Muslim Israelis that comprise 20% of Israeli population, and live in Israel as Israeli citizens with the same exact rights as the Jewish, Christian, Bahaii, and Atheist Israelis?

No, I mean all those Palestinians who are not allowed to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

No such thing. 20 percent of Israel population consists of Arab Muslims who have the same rights as their fellow Jewish counterparts, and enjoy the highest standard of living in the middle east compared to other Arab countries.

True story....

Israel has an unusual interpretation of "same rights."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeSK1EHUQg]30 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Roudy]

No, I mean all those Palestinians who are not allowed to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

No such thing. 20 percent of Israel population consists of Arab Muslims who have the same rights as their fellow Jewish counterparts, and enjoy the highest standard of living in the middle east compared to other Arab countries.

True story....

Israel has an unusual interpretation of "same rights."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeSK1EHUQg]30 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]

That pathetic propoganda video wasn't even taped in Israel, you idiot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No such thing. 20 percent of Israel population consists of Arab Muslims who have the same rights as their fellow Jewish counterparts, and enjoy the highest standard of living in the middle east compared to other Arab countries.

True story....

Israel has an unusual interpretation of "same rights."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdeSK1EHUQg]30 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube[/ame]

That pathetic propoganda video wasn't even taped in Israel, you idiot.

Sakhnin (Arabic: سخنين*; Hebrew: סַחְ'נִין** or סִכְנִין Sikhnin) is a city in Israel's North District. It is located in the Lower Galilee, about 23 kilometres (14 mi) east of Acre. Sakhnin was declared a city in 1995. Its population of 25,100[1] is Arab, mostly Muslim with a sizable Christian minority.

In 1976, it became the site of the first Land Day marches, in which six Israeli Arabs were killed by Israeli forces during violent protests of government confiscation of 5,000 acres (20 km2) of Arab-owned land near Sakhnin.

Sakhnin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Roudy]

Israel has an unusual interpretation of "same rights."

30 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube

That pathetic propoganda video wasn't even taped in Israel, you idiot.

Sakhnin (Arabic: سخنين*; Hebrew: סַחְ'נִין** or סִכְנִין Sikhnin) is a city in Israel's North District. It is located in the Lower Galilee, about 23 kilometres (14 mi) east of Acre. Sakhnin was declared a city in 1995. Its population of 25,100[1] is Arab, mostly Muslim with a sizable Christian minority.

In 1976, it became the site of the first Land Day marches, in which six Israeli Arabs were killed by Israeli forces during violent protests of government confiscation of 5,000 acres (20 km2) of Arab-owned land near Sakhnin.

Sakhnin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're objecting the 1967 attack that the Arabs attacked Israel and they lost, and now they want a do over? Wow, does anybody have a tissue?

 

[Roudy]

Israel has an unusual interpretation of "same rights."

30 sleepless Gaza Jerusalem.divx - YouTube

That pathetic propoganda video wasn't even taped in Israel, you idiot.

Sakhnin (Arabic: سخنين*; Hebrew: סַחְ'נִין** or סִכְנִין Sikhnin) is a city in Israel's North District. It is located in the Lower Galilee, about 23 kilometres (14 mi) east of Acre. Sakhnin was declared a city in 1995. Its population of 25,100[1] is Arab, mostly Muslim with a sizable Christian minority.

In 1976, it became the site of the first Land Day marches, in which six Israeli Arabs were killed by Israeli forces during violent protests of government confiscation of 5,000 acres (20 km2) of Arab-owned land near Sakhnin.

Sakhnin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did they interview the 2 million Arabs that say they'd rather live in Israel over any Arab country, including among their "Palestinian" brothers and sisters? You think they know something about their own brethren?

 

[P F Tinmore]

That pathetic propoganda video wasn't even taped in Israel, you idiot.

Sakhnin (Arabic: سخنين*; Hebrew: סַחְ'נִין** or סִכְנִין Sikhnin) is a city in Israel's North District. It is located in the Lower Galilee, about 23 kilometres (14 mi) east of Acre. Sakhnin was declared a city in 1995. Its population of 25,100[1] is Arab, mostly Muslim with a sizable Christian minority.

In 1976, it became the site of the first Land Day marches, in which six Israeli Arabs were killed by Israeli forces during violent protests of government confiscation of 5,000 acres (20 km2) of Arab-owned land near Sakhnin.

Sakhnin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They're objecting the 1967 attack that the Arabs attacked Israel and they lost, and now they want a do over? Wow, does anybody have a tissue?

That was 1976 not 1967.

 

[SAYIT]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it.

No need in YOUR mind but given all the "water under their bridge" or more explicitly, "blood in the water" between the conflicted parties, perhaps the Israelis need it. The fact is, using your line of reasoning, if the "Palestinians" were at the table for serious negotiation, assuring Israel that they accept Israel's right to exist (or whatever spoken reassurance Israel needed along that line) would be a no brainer. It would cost the "Palestinians" nothing to say it, even if they don't mean it. The fact that they won't is both evidence that they aren't serious about the talks or Israel's right to exist and it is the "Pals" who are delaying the talks.

 

[SAYIT]

No, I mean all those Palestinians who are not allowed to live in their homeland because they are not Jewish.

Have you forgotten that Winstaon Churchill said that the Arabs arrived in hordes from their surrounding impoversighed countries when Isreal had jobs for them? Perhaps in your mind all those who have crossed over our Southern boarder for jobs are indigenous to the U.S. Perhaps you can explain to us why the UN said that anyone in the reason for ONLY two years could be considered a refugee. Does that really make you indigenous to an area?


jt2

Churchill was a drunk, a racist, and a liar.

That, of course, would be the opinion of one such as you, TinHorn, perhaps because Churchill saw your "peaceful" Arab/Muslim comrades as they really are:

'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

-- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

 

[P F Tinmore]

Have you forgotten that Winstaon Churchill said that the Arabs arrived in hordes from their surrounding impoversighed countries when Isreal had jobs for them? Perhaps in your mind all those who have crossed over our Southern boarder for jobs are indigenous to the U.S. Perhaps you can explain to us why the UN said that anyone in the reason for ONLY two years could be considered a refugee. Does that really make you indigenous to an area?


jt2

Churchill was a drunk, a racist, and a liar.

That, of course, would be the opinion of one such as you, TinHorn, perhaps because Churchill saw your "peaceful" Arab/Muslim comrades as they really are:

'How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

-- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

perhaps because Churchill saw your "peaceful" Arab/Muslim comrades as they really are:

No, it is because he was a drunk, a racist, and a liar.

 

[SAYIT]

Hey Lipush;
I just noticed that in the picture that you are using for your sig. line that the Dome of the Rock is gone. Does that mean that in the rebuilt Jerusalem there will be no place for religious sites or architectual wonders that are not Jewish. Seems to me that if that is the case your new Jerusalem is racist.
Don't you think if you are going to destroy the Dome you are going to anger a whole lot of people, at least 1.4 billion. Does that concern you at all. I thought Israel had promised that it would preserve the holy sites of all the world's religions not just it's own. Care to respond.

Let's see ... you determined that a change in Lipush's sig line can only mean that Israel is about to erase all non-Jewish religious sites from Jerusalem, that "the new Jerusalem" is "racist," and that Lipush is about to destroy the Dome of the Rock.
Frankly, PatCat, despite all your preening, your just a raging friggin' bigoted moron.
Oh, and have a nice day.

 

[docmauser1]

Have you forgotten that Winstaon Churchill said that the Arabs arrived in hordes from their surrounding impoversighed countries when Isreal had jobs for them? Perhaps in your mind all those who have crossed over our Southern border for jobs are indigenous to the U.S. Perhaps you can explain to us why the UN said that anyone in the reason for ONLY two years could be considered a refugee. Does that really make you indigenous to an area?

Churchill was a drunk, a racist, and a liar.

Everyone, who doesn't dance to the arab tune is either a drunk, a racist, of a liar. It's a non-argument.

 

[SAYIT]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it. that can be done after the negotiations.

and also, and for what it is worth, the arab league, which includes palestine, has recognised israel in the offer of a peace initiative.

lol...i'm not yelling at you. i'm just frustrated. i agree with you that both sides need to enter any negotiations on an equal basis.

i guess this "right to exist" thing is just out there with no rule, rhyme, reason or condition.

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

A rational thought by LoinCloth!
Way to go, Princess.
Indeed Israel already exists so why do the "Palestinians" adamantly refuse to just admit it and move on to more pressing matters?

 

[SAYIT]

personally, i think the demand of a "recognition of the right exist" is different than the actual "right to exist" itself, which was what my original question was about, and something no one seems able to explain, opting istead to repeat over and over again, sometimes in what seems like a histrionic frenzy, that israel has one, which i never denied nor affirmed.

i think israel's demand of of the palestinian negotiater's explicit recognition of israel's right to exist is a stalling tactic used to prevent negotion, as well as to interject some sort of israeli dominance into the process. christ, the palestinians are at the table and that is an implicit recognition of israel's right to exist. there is no need to formalise it. that can be done after the negotiations.

and also, and for what it is worth, the arab league, which includes palestine, has recognised israel in the offer of a peace initiative.

lol...i'm not yelling at you. i'm just frustrated. i agree with you that both sides need to enter any negotiations on an equal basis.

i guess this "right to exist" thing is just out there with no rule, rhyme, reason or condition.

I think this whole "right to exist" thing is a moot point. They exist already. They're there. Israel exists and there isn't a single country in the ME that can do anything about it. So why all this talk about their right to exist when they're already there?

Sure Israel exists. It exists as an ocupation.

Your denials, and those of your hapless "Palestinian" brethren, simply delay the establishment of both peace and a "Palestinian" state, niether of which seem particularly important to either of you.