No 'Deals' With Israel, Unless We Get Everything We Want

[Indeependent]

Billo_Really, P F Tinmore, et al,

I give you an "open apology" if my post was somehow offensive to you. In the written medium, there is some difficulty translating a respective and congenial tone while still being most serious in the explicit sense.

For me, some concepts are difficult to transmit in this written form and remain fully revealed, expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity --- AND --- simultaneously - completely courteous and gracious in tone.

That's a question Zionists never had any intention of asking.

Again, when asking "who has the right to self-determination", is it the people just moving into the area, or the people already living there?

(REFERENCE OBSERVATION)

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,


SOURCE: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/61/L.67 and Add.1)]GA Resolution 61/295.

(COMMENT)

In answering the question, "who has the right to self-determination" --- is a gray matter exercise. It requires an unbiased approach and an understanding that these are relatively new concepts to mix and match.

• First: All people (not just the indigenous population) have the right of self-determination.
• Second: Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples. Therefore, All other people are equal to Indigenous People.
• Third: There is value in the diversity of the cultures; and not just in the maintenance of the indigenous people and culture.

In the case of the conflict: Israeli 'v' Arab-Palestinian, neither has an advantage over the other. However, if there is an advantage, it rest with the diversity (multicultural). But more importantly, there is a recognition that the intervention of 5 Arab Armies in the attempt to block the exercise of the Israeli "right to self-determination" was an inappropriate application of foreign military force.

Most Respectfully,
R

I accept your apology and thank you an almost entirely unbiased post. I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the last part.

The "arab armies" didn't go in to stop Israel from becoming a state, they went in to protect the civil rights of the indigenous arab population. And when looking at what happened next, it's obvious that the "arab armies" didn't have what it would take, to block Israel's independence.

And to this day, they still don't.

Four armies from four directions?
Try again, Jew hater.

 

[aris2chat]

>>The "arab armies" didn't go in to stop Israel from becoming a state, they went in to protect the civil rights of the indigenous arab population. And when looking at what happened next, it's obvious that the "arab armies" didn't have what it would take, to block Israel's independence.<<

Well..........
They rejected the UN vote for two states, there by allowing Israel to declare independence, so they did try to stop and Israeli state from existing. The Arab states, would not permit a palestinian state from existing either. Jordan, Egypt and Syria all had designs for palestine being scooped up as part of their own greater arab state ambitions. They told the refugees to leave, and made fantastic promises of rewards when they returned.
And, Lebanon was not really involved in the fighting. Israel and Lebanon came to an understanding before hand.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well..........
They rejected the UN vote for two states,

Who in their right mind would accept a deal giving 70% of the land, to 10% of the population?

there by allowing Israel to declare independence,

That's bullshit! Zionists declared independence a day before the official end of the Mandate and against a request by the UN for them to hold off making any political decisions until a commission could convene to discuss the Palestinian issue.

so they did try to stop and Israeli state from existing.

That's just bullshit not backed up by historical fact.

The Arab states, would not permit a palestinian state from existing either.

That's conjecture on your part.

Jordan, Egypt and Syria all had designs for palestine being scooped up as part of their own greater arab state ambitions.

More conjecture.

They told the refugees to leave, and made fantastic promises of rewards when they returned.

Bullshit! They were driven out by jewish terrorist groups like Irgun.

And, Lebanon was not really involved in the fighting. Israel and Lebanon came to an understanding before hand.

Who said they were?

 

[Billo_Really]

Four armies from four directions?
Try again, Jew hater.

Why do you think I hate jews?

I ask that question knowing you don't have the balls to answer it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

>>The "arab armies" didn't go in to stop Israel from becoming a state, they went in to protect the civil rights of the indigenous arab population. And when looking at what happened next, it's obvious that the "arab armies" didn't have what it would take, to block Israel's independence.<<

Well..........
They rejected the UN vote for two states, there by allowing Israel to declare independence, so they did try to stop and Israeli state from existing. The Arab states, would not permit a palestinian state from existing either. Jordan, Egypt and Syria all had designs for palestine being scooped up as part of their own greater arab state ambitions. They told the refugees to leave, and made fantastic promises of rewards when they returned.
And, Lebanon was not really involved in the fighting. Israel and Lebanon came to an understanding before hand.

They rejected the UN vote for two states, there by allowing Israel to declare independence,...

Not true.

The resolution needed to be approved by both sides to be valid. Neither the mandate nor the Security Council would implement the plan without the Palestinian's approval.

Resolution 181 did not allow anything.

 

[Indeependent]

Four armies from four directions?
Try again, Jew hater.

Why do you think I hate jews?

I ask that question knowing you don't have the balls to answer it.

Same message as I have for Sally.
First of all, you pretty much admitted yesterday that your sole source for your erroneous history is from pro-Palestinian web-sites.
Second of all, if a Jew walked the wrong way you'd post some garbage about how that walk was affecting the Arab in some deleterious manner.

You don't have the balls to research various sites and come up with a non-Jewish hating view of view.
And I must say that anybody who has to constantly revert to the F word to advance their cause is not exactly erudite on the topic being discussed.

So go ahead and post your usual, F*** off buddy, I'll do anything I want" garbage.

You want the truth?
Admit you hate Jews and I'll stop criticizing your postings because at least I'll know you're honest.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Did I mention this was a "gray matter exercise?"

Recalling also the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which addresses their individual and collective rights,

Stressing the importance of promoting and pursuing the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also through international cooperation to support national and regional efforts to achieve the ends of the Declaration, including the right to maintain and strengthen the distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions of indigenous peoples and the right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State,

Recognizing the value and the diversity of the cultures and the form of the social organization of indigenous peoples and their holistic traditional scientific knowledge of their lands, natural resources and environment,

SOURCE: A/RES/66/142 30 March 2012

Gee, Rocco, I don't see foreigners mentioned here.

(LOGIC - Deductive Reasoning) [The example is valid and sound.]

AXIOM #1: . All "people" have the "right of Self-determination."
PREMISE A: "Foreigners" are "people."
PREMISE B: "Immigrants" are "people."
.____________________________________________________.

THEREFORE: Foreigners and Immigrants have the "right of Self-determination."​

You have a truncated version of the original Post. I recommend you go back to Post #153 and review the content. Within that content, you will see the source for the Axiom on the universal realization of the right of all peoples. Foreigners and encouraged immigrants are subsets of "all people."

(LOGIC - Inductive Reasoning) [Reasoning based on detailed facts and general principles.]

• The Administration of Palestine, was to encourage and facilitate Jewish immigration.
• The Administration of Palestine, was to include law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence.
• The Mandatory was to be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home; and the development of self-governing institutions.

EVALUATION

1. When immigration is encourage.
2. When laws are structured to promote citizenship.
3. When conditions are set to establish a national home.
4. When the development of self-governing institutions are promoted.

These are basic actions and deeds to promote and further the development of a "people" and not the actions of a government having no permanent interest in a guest from a foreign land. It is a level of commitment no normally associated with foreigners.

Whether we use your objection, or restructure your concept faults, the answer is still the same. The Jewish and the Arab Palestinian have the exact same rights by intent and design.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

These are basic actions and deeds to promote and further the development of a "people" and not...

You stated that incorrectly. It should read:

These are basic actions and deeds to promote and further the development of "a people" and not...

That is better.

 

[P F Tinmore]

(LOGIC - Deductive Reasoning) [The example is valid and sound.]

AXIOM #1: . All "people" have the "right of Self-determination."
PREMISE A: "Foreigners" are "people."
PREMISE B: "Immigrants" are "people."
.____________________________________________________.

THEREFORE: Foreigners and Immigrants have the "right of Self-determination."​

I think you slipped a cog in your conclusion.

Using your logic Germany could claim the right to "self determination" in Poland.

You never have posted the link stating that foreigners have the right to self determination that I have requested several times.

 

[Billo_Really]

Same message as I have for Sally.

You think Sally hates jews?

First of all, you pretty much admitted yesterday that your sole source for your erroneous history is from pro-Palestinian web-sites.

I did nothing of the kind. What post was that? Care to produce it? I did admit "a" source, which was the UN's official website. Are you saying the UN is "pro-Palestinian" and not a credible source? And I never said it was my "sole" source. So you lied!

Second of all, if a Jew walked the wrong way you'd post some garbage about how that walk was affecting the Arab in some deleterious manner.

That's just a bullshit hypothetical you whipped up, to give the illusion your argument has merit.

You don't have the balls to research various sites and come up with a non-Jewish hating view of view.

Coming up with a "non-Jewish hating view", does not prove researching various sites. However, regarding the issue of defending the occupation and blockade of Gaza, it does prove Islamophobia from the poster.

In formal debates, all one has to provide, is a minimum of 3 separate sources to prove a claim. If all 3 of those sources say the same thing and that "thing", happens to be against the Israeli position, that has nothing to do with "jew-hating". It has everything to do with the rest of the world thinking what Israel did (or doing) is wrong.

And I must say that anybody who has to constantly revert to the F word to advance their cause is not exactly erudite on the topic being discussed.

"erudite" - I had to look that up.

I'm not using the f-word to "advance" my "cause"; I use it for emphasis, nothing more.

BTW, this doesn't prove "jew-hating" either.

So go ahead and post your usual, F*** off buddy, I'll do anything I want" garbage.

Is this part of your proof that I "hate jews", or did you change the subject and are now off into new vista's of personal attacks?

You want the truth?

I am the truth!

Admit you hate Jews and I'll stop criticizing your postings because at least I'll know you're honest.

Not only am I not going to admit that (because I don't), I actually enjoy your criticisms, because you're a perfect example of "bad logic".

But I do take back the "you don't have the balls" comment, at least you tried, but failed.

Now let's cut the foreplay and get to the bottom line. The only reason you call me a "jew-hater", is because you don't have the moral and ethical courage it takes to look at the Israeli situation honestly and accurately. This behavior is quite common among all the Israeli kiss-asses at this website. Anyone who criticizes Israel, gets constantly attacked until the cows come home. Very few ever address the criticisms directly. And the ones who do, even though I might disagree, I make it a point to commend their posts.

 

[Billo_Really]

I have to disagree with you, Billy. As some head Arabs said at that time, they will fight the Jews to the last man. The Arabs couldn't stand to see any Jews having a state in the Middle East. Anyhow, you might find this an interesting read, although you will probably disagree with it since you are an expert on the history of the area.

Palestinian Myths

Bravo! Good post! You go, girl! I didn't think you had it in you! Nice to see you've joined the debate and I welcome your disagreement with open arms.

I have no reason to doubt that some arabs did say that at the time. They're just as guilty of chest thumping and locker room bravado, as much as anyone else. And I'm pretty sure, "can't standing" the Jews having a state, is quite accurate.

I did find your link interesting and did disagree with some of it's claims. This one in particular...

They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration.

This is the migration records according to the UN...




...and it's quite obvious they don't contrast.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Bravo! Good post! You go, girl! I didn't think you had it in you! Nice to see you've joined the debate and I welcome your disagreement with open arms..."

You spend months cursing and laying-down F-bombs on top of a large percentage of posts and posters with whom you violently disagree, and then all of a sudden you're the epitome of reasonableness and congeniality?

The word 'schizophrenia' comes to mind.

 

[Sally]

I have to disagree with you, Billy. As some head Arabs said at that time, they will fight the Jews to the last man. The Arabs couldn't stand to see any Jews having a state in the Middle East. Anyhow, you might find this an interesting read, although you will probably disagree with it since you are an expert on the history of the area.

Palestinian Myths

Bravo! Good post! You go, girl! I didn't think you had it in you! Nice to see you've joined the debate and I welcome your disagreement with open arms.

I have no reason to doubt that some arabs did say that at the time. They're just as guilty of chest thumping and locker room bravado, as much as anyone else. And I'm pretty sure, "can't standing" the Jews having a state, is quite accurate.

I did find your link interesting and did disagree with some of it's claims. This one in particular...

They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration.

This is the migration records according to the UN...




...and it's quite obvious they don't contrast.

Why, Billy, this forum must really be important to you that you are posting at such hours instead of getting your sleep. I thought you were a working man still and needed to get a good amount of shut-eye during the night. I am sure most of the good people in Long Beach were sleeping at this time unless they were on the graveyard shift. Anyhow, who knows if the UN is fudging on the figures. Maybe you could contact that Egyptian official who told the Gazans to come back to Egypt. He must know something. Besides, there have been many accounts (posted previously on another message board in the past) of visitors who passed through the area and didn't see all hese Arabs that you want us to believe were there. What they saw were some Bedouins, and when they got to the big cities, they saw the Jews. I am sure that since many here in the U.S. can pick up accents from the different states, such as those from the South or the New York City area, the British officials stationed in the area were able to pick up the different accents of the Arabs coming in from the different surrounding countries, and that is why they reported back that the Arabs were flooding into the country. Don't you see the same situation today where you see people coming from their impoverished countries into America, Canada and Europe?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You talk as if the "right of self-determination" automatically means you get to declare a sovereign nation. That is entirely wrong.

(LOGIC - Deductive Reasoning) [The example is valid and sound.]

AXIOM #1: . All "people" have the "right of Self-determination."
PREMISE A: "Foreigners" are "people."
PREMISE B: "Immigrants" are "people."
.____________________________________________________.

THEREFORE: Foreigners and Immigrants have the "right of Self-determination."​

I think you slipped a cog in your conclusion.

Using your logic Germany could claim the right to "self determination" in Poland.

You never have posted the link stating that foreigners have the right to self determination that I have requested several times.

(OBSERVATION - Skip if you like!) (And Chuckle)

The 21st Century States of Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium, Czech Republic, and Switzerland were once known as the Duchy of Prussia and the Margraviate of Brandenburg; regional under Kingdom of Prussia (1701), and ruled by the House of Hohenzollern. In the late 18th Century, Poland was partitioned three times by the Imperial Powers (1772, 1793, 1795). It so happens that you are very close, to being correct. BUT, it was the other way around. The Polish exercised their right of self-determination and established its independence in 1918; but only after the fall of the Empire (Kaiser William II of the Hohenzollern Dynasty, last German Emperor and King of Prussia abdicated the throne). While there was, for a time, an entity known as Republic of Poland (better known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), that is something entirely different from Poland today (post-Soviet domination) or even the Poland of the first half of the 20th Century (pre-Soviet domination). The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist on third great partition.

Just because a people have the "right to self-determination" does not mean that they can effectively exercise it; or automatically deserve something. Freedom and independence are not free. You don't just waive a sign that says you have the right to self-determination and everyone bows down and says: "By all means, please pass."

Unlike Poland, the 20th Century Palestine was never its own, and had not been ruled by its own in more than a Millennium. Where as, Poland had been a Duchy and ruled over by the Princely royal families such as the Piast (Bohemian), P&#345;emyslid (Bohemia), Anjou (Hungarian-Polish), Jagiellonian (Lithuanian), Vasa (Swedish), Wettin (Danish), Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov (Russian), Habsburg-Lorraine (Austrian - including Francis II the last Holy Roman Emperor), Lefebvre (one of the original 18 Marshals to the Empire of Napoleon Bonaparte), and Hohenzollern [Grand Dukes of Posen (under the Kingdom of Prussia)], those that lived in the region of the former Mandate, had a constant Ruler, for nearly 8 Centuries - The Sultans of the Ottoman Empire.​

(COMMENT)

The "foreigner" question sounds so child-like. And it comes from a people that don't even see the word, or understand its meaning.

There is no law that speaks about "foreigners" relative to "self-determination or sovereignty." The concept is neither used nor discussed. The distinction is made by the designation: You are either "indigenous" or you are not. The word "foreigner" is hardly ever used in political or diplomatic criteria or formal descriptions of people. It is not a criteria at all relative to "self-determination." It is because the enlightened world doesn't have an irrational concept of that which is perceived to be foreign - because it is NOT strange.

Your example of Poland is both wrong and right. Wrong in the sense that for more than a Millennium, the indigenous populations saw many different regimes pass through in their leadership. Even the brothers "Lech" (legendary founder of the Polish nation) and "Czech," first monarchs of the West Slavic lands of Lechia (part of today's Poland), and Bohemia in Chronica Polonorum, were NOT Polish." Remembering that they came from Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia; what is today the modern Czech Republic.

Your "foreigner" issue is asking to prove a negative, something that doesn't exist. In the entire legislative work of the GA/RES/61/295 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, neither the word "foreign" or "foreigner" is used even once.

Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,
...
Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any people their right of self-determination exercised in conformity with international law.

Indigenous people do not have any rights exceed those of any other people. The rights of the indigenous do not supersede the rights of other people.

The Arab Palestinian has no special right conferred upon them by any law, above that conferred upon any other persons or people. This is especially true in a land (former Mandate of Palestine) that was not under Arab Palestinian sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Gee, Rocco, do you have to blow so much smoke. It is difficult to find your points when they are buried in a page of irrelevance.

You do not like me to us the term foreigner. I use the term because it is universally understood. Besides foreigner, or perhaps alien, what term could be used to define someone from someplace else?

Note that the UN does use the term foreign.
---------------
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General on the right
of peoples to self-determination, 19/

1. Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all
peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination,
to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective
guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and
promotion of such rights;

2. Declares its firm opposition to acts of foreign military
intervention, aggression and occupation, since these have resulted in
the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination and
other human rights in certain parts of the world;

3. Calls upon those States responsible to cease immediately
their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and
territories and all acts of repression, discrimination, exploitation
and maltreatment, particularly the brutal and inhuman methods
reportedly employed for the execution of those acts against the
peoples concerned;

4. Deplores the plight of the millions of refugees and
displaced persons who have been uprooted as a result of the
aforementioned acts, and reaffirms their right to return to their
homes voluntarily in safety and honour;

5. Requests the Commission on Human Rights to continue to give
special attention to the violation of human rights, especially the
right to self-determination, resulting from foreign military
intervention, aggression or occupation;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report on this question to
the General Assembly at its fifty-second session under the item
entitled "Right of peoples to self-determination".

A/RES/51/84. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination

 

[Indeependent]

Same message as I have for Sally.

You think Sally hates jews?

First of all, you pretty much admitted yesterday that your sole source for your erroneous history is from pro-Palestinian web-sites.

I did nothing of the kind. What post was that? Care to produce it? I did admit "a" source, which was the UN's official website. Are you saying the UN is "pro-Palestinian" and not a credible source? And I never said it was my "sole" source. So you lied!

That's just a bullshit hypothetical you whipped up, to give the illusion your argument has merit.

Coming up with a "non-Jewish hating view", does not prove researching various sites. However, regarding the issue of defending the occupation and blockade of Gaza, it does prove Islamophobia from the poster.

In formal debates, all one has to provide, is a minimum of 3 separate sources to prove a claim. If all 3 of those sources say the same thing and that "thing", happens to be against the Israeli position, that has nothing to do with "jew-hating". It has everything to do with the rest of the world thinking what Israel did (or doing) is wrong.

"erudite" - I had to look that up.

I'm not using the f-word to "advance" my "cause"; I use it for emphasis, nothing more.

BTW, this doesn't prove "jew-hating" either.
Is this part of your proof that I "hate jews", or did you change the subject and are now off into new vista's of personal attacks?

You want the truth?

I am the truth!

Admit you hate Jews and I'll stop criticizing your postings because at least I'll know you're honest.

Not only am I not going to admit that (because I don't), I actually enjoy your criticisms, because you're a perfect example of "bad logic".

But I do take back the "you don't have the balls" comment, at least you tried, but failed.

Now let's cut the foreplay and get to the bottom line. The only reason you call me a "jew-hater", is because you don't have the moral and ethical courage it takes to look at the Israeli situation honestly and accurately. This behavior is quite common among all the Israeli kiss-asses at this website. Anyone who criticizes Israel, gets constantly attacked until the cows come home. Very few ever address the criticisms directly. And the ones who do, even though I might disagree, I make it a point to commend their posts.

Read your last paragraph and keep very much in mind that I have been the one to point out that there is NO JEWISH basis for not kicking a$$.

I asked if you read any non-Arab sites for your history and you told me to F off and you'll read any site you want.
It is blatantly OBVIOUS that your historical knowledge of the Middle East comes exclusively from Arab sites because your chain of events make no sense.

The Jews forefather is Abraham and he never turned away from a fight.
Guess what, the Jews of old are back!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you will find the word "foreign."

Gee, Rocco, do you have to blow so much smoke. It is difficult to find your points when they are buried in a page of irrelevance.

You do not like me to us the term foreigner. I use the term because it is universally understood. Besides foreigner, or perhaps alien, what term could be used to define someone from someplace else?

Note that the UN does use the term foreign.
--------------

(COMMENT)

But more to the point is the question you raised.

Where does it say that any class of people have less of a right? Where does it say "foreigners" have less of a right to self-determination?

Your thesis is, and has consistently been that the Jewish Immigrants have less of a right to self-determination than the Arab Palestinian. Where does it say that?

And --- when did these special right that the Arab Palestinians have come into being?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Read your last paragraph and keep very much in mind that I have been the one to point out that there is NO JEWISH basis for not kicking a$$.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

I asked if you read any non-Arab sites for your history and you told me to F off and you'll read any site you want.

I asked you to show me what post I allegedly said this in?

Why can't you produce it?

It is blatantly OBVIOUS that your historical knowledge of the Middle East comes exclusively from Arab sites because your chain of events make no sense.

Your personal, biased opinion, has nothing to do with the websites I use for my sources.

And I do believe I told you what one of those sites were and asked you if you considered that an "arab" site?

Why can't you answer that question?

The Jews forefather is Abraham and he never turned away from a fight.

Well my father always told me, "Don't ever start a fight, but always finish one!"

So guess what, this liberal don't run!

Guess what, the Jews of old are back!

Are you saying Jesus wasn't the only Jew resurrected?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I took note that you did highlight these passages.

under colonial, foreign and alien domination,
foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation,
military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression,
foreign military intervention, aggression or occupation;

(COMMENT)

This must be in reference to the multiple Arab Armies that have consistently moved against the State of Israel. I say that only because, there have been no "foreign" military forces that have jumped-in on the side of Israel at any time in the conflict.

Other than to highlight the use of the word "foreign," was there any other reason you might have chosen these passages?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, Indeependent; et al,

Humm, I surely missed the point here. BUT!

Guess what, the Jews of old are back!

Are you saying Jesus wasn't the only Jew resurrected?

(QUESTION)

• Who is Lazarus of Bethany?
• Why is Lazarus of Bethany famous?

Most Respectfully,
R