No Palestinian State

[danielpalos]

As many of you are aware, until this recent election victory I felt disdain & disgust for Netanyahoo. I even referred to him as Nutandyahoo for making peace offerings to Palestinians, building a security fence & granting Palestinians their their own Jew free Gaza to add fuel to this endless conflict. I even stated he should be tried & convicted for war crimes against his own Israeli citizens for what he has done. Finally Bibi has earned my full support & best wishes.

And for those of you who disagree that he has made the best move for Israel by denying a Palestifnian State, consider the rocket missiles Israel received for a thank you for giving them Gaza. And above all, just ask yourself would Egypt or Jordan who know the Palestinians best, care to offer the Palestinians a Palestinian State? LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

Israel s PM Netanyahu No Palestinian state on my watch - CNN.com

If I post a capital venture on EquityNet to pay the Chinese to build a City-State called, Judea and simply invite the Palestinians to recant, will you help fund it?

 

[danielpalos]

Here are some concept designs.

City-Statehood could be wonderful.

China building mega cities but they remain empty ghost towns

 

[Phoenall]

2005 when Israel left gaza willingly and were bombarded with rockets all day every day. That was the first step on the road to peace agreed in 1999 at Oslo. So what have the Palestinians done again towards a permanent peace ?

Unfortunately Israel leaving Gaza is not a real two state solution is it...

That was Israel pulling out of territory that does not belong to them... As Israel needs to pull out of all occupied territory.

There can then be proper discussions on a two state solution.

Read Oslo and see what the first steps were towards a lasting peace, then get back and explain what the arab muslims did towards promoting that lasting peace. There were a lot of Jews that owned land and property in gaza so you cant say that it did not belong to them. Israel will when the Palestinians agree peace terms and mutual borders as set down in the Geneva conventions. There can never be discusions on a two state solution while the arab muslims are making illegal demands and trying to force other nations into doing their dirty work for them. Doing so will lead to massive repurcusions for both parties.

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

Correct

No but gaza was the first step towards a lasting peace

Which the Palestinians don't want as they would lose the money they mooch. But the Geneva conventions say differently and they say the occupation ends once a peace deal is signed.

BULLSHIT

True but they seem to be the worst ones and the ones causing the most trouble.

Correct

BULLSHIT?

Ok Phoney... Like to tell me what Netanyahu has been quoted as saying about No Palestine?

What did the left of center parties have to say about No Palestine?

There are no "worst ones"...

Israel does not want peace... Because it will mean that they have to hand back occupied territory!

No Palestinian state under the present conditions

Israel is prepared to negotiate a peace deal that includes Jews living on Jewish owned land in the west bank

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you generally only tell half the story.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

See Post #46:

Since that time, various elements of the pro-Arab Palestinian Community have attempted to assert that because the term "Palestine" was used and went unchanged after the Mandate terminated, that there must have been a country called "Palestine." And to an extent the successor government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission --- with the adopted resolution (A/RES/189 S-2) providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

You keep saying that. Where were they after May 15, 1948 when they were to protect the people and land under their trust?

Do you have some links?

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

Because they did not come with the stated goal of taking over the country, they came with the stated goal of settling and living with the arab muslims as one nation. The arab muslims objected and decided that violence and aggression were the only answers.

Of course the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of "the country". The first Zionist document was "The Jewish State, An Attempt for a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question', (Der Judenstaat) was published on February 14, 1896.

".....the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. As for those who remain behind, since prosperity enfeebles and causes them to dimin ish, they would soon disappear altogether. I think the Jews will always have sufficient enemies, such as every nation has. But once fixed in their own land, it will no longer be possible for them to scatter all over the world. The diaspora cannot be reborn, unless the civilization of the whole easth should collapse; and such a consummation could be feared by none but foolish men. Our present civilization possesses weapons powerful enough for its self-defence...."

The Jewish State Theodor Herzl Jewish Virtual Library

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

While this is really an Israeli domestic question, I've noticed in this forum a kind of misunderstanding as to what is meant, in contemporary terms, by Zionist and Zionism.

You will no doubt note that the most organized opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party (normally considered right-wing) is a coalition of smaller center-left parties known as the Zionist Union. Zionism is not exclusively either Right Wing or a Liberal Political philosophy.

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

(COMMENT)

I think, after talking to both members of the American Jewish Community --- and to a lesser extend --- the Middle Eastern Jewish Community (ie mostly one-sided listening), one might think that Zionism is a liberal-democratic ideological. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also considers himself --- a Zionist of sorts.

The one bare fact that we must understand is that Zionism has evolved. While there still are a number of Jews that want to follow the original path of Theodor Herzl with the constituency that encourages the reestablishment of the historic homeland of the Jews (more of a 19th century sought to conjure a national identity). There are those that in the Labor Party (Isaac Herzog) and the Hatnuah Party (Tzipi Livni) who are supporting a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. And still Zionism is NOT consistent with liberalism. To consider Israel in terms of a "Jewish State" is more the form of a Zionist concept. And while it was not immediately obvious to me as a youngster and new to the Middle East --- many Israeli Jews deductively conclude that Jewish State and Zionism virtually implies a binding declaration to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home in perpetuity; --- against the Jihadist made a solemn declaration (1948) before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The Zionists, among other things, is the counter force to the Hostile Arab Palestinian concept that believes any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State, pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence (outlined by the UN General Assembly in the 1947 Resolution) in the territory (formerly under mandate) is an act of aggression which will be resisted though Jihad and belligerence. (I think this better defines the "Zionists stated goal" much better than Post #97 by our friend "montelatici." You simply cannot just "cut'n'paste" an 1896 quote from Theodor Herzl and say that is it; --- ignoring the intervening century (plus) of development.)

I'm not sure that there is one consistent definition (etched in stone) of the Zionist of today --- or --- what everyone would agree is Zionism. I'm not sure that the term has not outlived its usefulness. But I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of Israelis today would agree that the objective of the Jewish State is to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home from now to the end of time. And I believe that is the common threat to Zionism; whether you are Right Wing Conservative, Centrix, or a Left-Wing Liberal. It is a concept that has survived intact form the 19th Century to present.

Just My Opinion
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Why should Egyptians or Jordanians give the Palestinians who remained in Palestine a Palestinian state? I don't get the logic. It would be like asking the Austrians to give the Germans in Silesia a German state in Austria.

Because their co-religionists cannot win and must be protected against their own idiocy, in the face of an overwhelmingly strong and determined enemy?

 

[aris2chat]

Phoenall, et al,

While this is really an Israeli domestic question, I've noticed in this forum a kind of misunderstanding as to what is meant, in contemporary terms, by Zionist and Zionism.

You will no doubt note that the most organized opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party (normally considered right-wing) is a coalition of smaller center-left parties known as the Zionist Union. Zionism is not exclusively either Right Wing or a Liberal Political philosophy.

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

(COMMENT)

I think, after talking to both members of the American Jewish Community --- and to a lesser extend --- the Middle Eastern Jewish Community (ie mostly one-sided listening), one might think that Zionism is a liberal-democratic ideological. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also considers himself --- a Zionist of sorts.

The one bare fact that we must understand is that Zionism has evolved. While there still are a number of Jews that want to follow the original path of Theodor Herzl with the constituency that encourages the reestablishment of the historic homeland of the Jews (more of a 19th century sought to conjure a national identity). There are those that in the Labor Party (Isaac Herzog) and the Hatnuah Party (Tzipi Livni) who are supporting a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. And still Zionism is NOT consistent with liberalism. To consider Israel in terms of a "Jewish State" is more the form of a Zionist concept. And while it was not immediately obvious to me as a youngster and new to the Middle East --- many Israeli Jews deductively conclude that Jewish State and Zionism virtually implies a binding declaration to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home in perpetuity; --- against the Jihadist made a solemn declaration (1948) before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The Zionists, among other things, is the counter force to the Hostile Arab Palestinian concept that believes any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State, pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence (outlined by the UN General Assembly in the 1947 Resolution) in the territory (formerly under mandate) is an act of aggression which will be resisted though Jihad and belligerence. (I think this better defines the "Zionists stated goal" much better than Post #97 by our friend "montelatici." You simply cannot just "cut'n'paste" an 1896 quote from Theodor Herzl and say that is it; --- ignoring the intervening century (plus) of development.)

I'm not sure that there is one consistent definition (etched in stone) of the Zionist of today --- or --- what everyone would agree is Zionism. I'm not sure that the term has not outlived its usefulness. But I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of Israelis today would agree that the objective of the Jewish State is to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home from now to the end of time. And I believe that is the common threat to Zionism; whether you are Right Wing Conservative, Centrix, or a Left-Wing Liberal. It is a concept that has survived intact form the 19th Century to present.

Just My Opinion
Most Respectfully,
R

Zion means Jerusalem. Aliyah and returning to Jerusalem is ancient part of Judaism. The belief in a jewish state goes back before 20th century zionism.
Jews have been retuning in various stages since the fall of the first temple. Since the time of Moses even. There has not been a time in what we consider recorded history when Jerusalem has not been a part of the prayers and hearts of the jewish people.

 

[MJB12741]

Phoenall, et al,

While this is really an Israeli domestic question, I've noticed in this forum a kind of misunderstanding as to what is meant, in contemporary terms, by Zionist and Zionism.

You will no doubt note that the most organized opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party (normally considered right-wing) is a coalition of smaller center-left parties known as the Zionist Union. Zionism is not exclusively either Right Wing or a Liberal Political philosophy.

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

(COMMENT)

I think, after talking to both members of the American Jewish Community --- and to a lesser extend --- the Middle Eastern Jewish Community (ie mostly one-sided listening), one might think that Zionism is a liberal-democratic ideological. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also considers himself --- a Zionist of sorts.

The one bare fact that we must understand is that Zionism has evolved. While there still are a number of Jews that want to follow the original path of Theodor Herzl with the constituency that encourages the reestablishment of the historic homeland of the Jews (more of a 19th century sought to conjure a national identity). There are those that in the Labor Party (Isaac Herzog) and the Hatnuah Party (Tzipi Livni) who are supporting a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. And still Zionism is NOT consistent with liberalism. To consider Israel in terms of a "Jewish State" is more the form of a Zionist concept. And while it was not immediately obvious to me as a youngster and new to the Middle East --- many Israeli Jews deductively conclude that Jewish State and Zionism virtually implies a binding declaration to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home in perpetuity; --- against the Jihadist made a solemn declaration (1948) before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The Zionists, among other things, is the counter force to the Hostile Arab Palestinian concept that believes any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State, pursuant to the Steps Preparatory to Independence (outlined by the UN General Assembly in the 1947 Resolution) in the territory (formerly under mandate) is an act of aggression which will be resisted though Jihad and belligerence. (I think this better defines the "Zionists stated goal" much better than Post #97 by our friend "montelatici." You simply cannot just "cut'n'paste" an 1896 quote from Theodor Herzl and say that is it; --- ignoring the intervening century (plus) of development.)

I'm not sure that there is one consistent definition (etched in stone) of the Zionist of today --- or --- what everyone would agree is Zionism. I'm not sure that the term has not outlived its usefulness. But I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of Israelis today would agree that the objective of the Jewish State is to protect, preserve and defend the Jewish National Home from now to the end of time. And I believe that is the common threat to Zionism; whether you are Right Wing Conservative, Centrix, or a Left-Wing Liberal. It is a concept that has survived intact form the 19th Century to present.

Just My Opinion
Most Respectfully,
R

Zion means Jerusalem. Aliyah and returning to Jerusalem is ancient part of Judaism. The belief in a jewish state goes back before 20th century zionism.
Jews have been retuning in various stages since the fall of the first temple. Since the time of Moses even. There has not been a time in what we consider recorded history when Jerusalem has not been a part of the prayers and hearts of the jewish people.

That started way back long before there even were any Muslims to steal the land they now occupy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you generally only tell half the story.

(COMMENT)

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

See Post #46:

Since that time, various elements of the pro-Arab Palestinian Community have attempted to assert that because the term "Palestine" was used and went unchanged after the Mandate terminated, that there must have been a country called "Palestine." And to an extent the successor government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission --- with the adopted resolution (A/RES/189 S-2) providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

You keep saying that. Where were they after May 15, 1948 when they were to protect the people and land under their trust?

Do you have some links?

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

You keep saying that. Where were they after May 15, 1948 when they were to protect the people and land under their trust?

Do you have some links?

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

Because they did not come with the stated goal of taking over the country, they came with the stated goal of settling and living with the arab muslims as one nation. The arab muslims objected and decided that violence and aggression were the only answers.

Of course the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of "the country". The first Zionist document was "The Jewish State, An Attempt for a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question', (Der Judenstaat) was published on February 14, 1896.

".....the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. As for those who remain behind, since prosperity enfeebles and causes them to dimin ish, they would soon disappear altogether. I think the Jews will always have sufficient enemies, such as every nation has. But once fixed in their own land, it will no longer be possible for them to scatter all over the world. The diaspora cannot be reborn, unless the civilization of the whole easth should collapse; and such a consummation could be feared by none but foolish men. Our present civilization possesses weapons powerful enough for its self-defence...."

The Jewish State Theodor Herzl Jewish Virtual Library

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

The title of Herzl's should be a clue, even to a dimwit like you.

 

[Humanity]

Tell it to the arab muslims as they are the ones with the NO JEWS charter

When was a real two state solution tried?

2005 when Israel left gaza willingly and were bombarded with rockets all day every day. That was the first step on the road to peace agreed in 1999 at Oslo. So what have the Palestinians done again towards a permanent peace ?

Unfortunately Israel leaving Gaza is not a real two state solution is it...

That was Israel pulling out of territory that does not belong to them... As Israel needs to pull out of all occupied territory.

There can then be proper discussions on a two state solution.

Read Oslo and see what the first steps were towards a lasting peace, then get back and explain what the arab muslims did towards promoting that lasting peace. There were a lot of Jews that owned land and property in gaza so you cant say that it did not belong to them. Israel will when the Palestinians agree peace terms and mutual borders as set down in the Geneva conventions. There can never be discusions on a two state solution while the arab muslims are making illegal demands and trying to force other nations into doing their dirty work for them. Doing so will lead to massive repurcusions for both parties.

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

Got news for you. The "occupied territory" is that of the Palestinian squatters on on Israel's land with no deeds or titles whatsoever to the land they stole that they have now been living on for genereations.

Thats not news is it...

Thats just a Zionists viewpoint of what they perceive theirs... Which of course is completely wrong!

Palestinian territories - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Humanity]

Unfortunately Israel leaving Gaza is not a real two state solution is it...

That was Israel pulling out of territory that does not belong to them... As Israel needs to pull out of all occupied territory.

There can then be proper discussions on a two state solution.

Read Oslo and see what the first steps were towards a lasting peace, then get back and explain what the arab muslims did towards promoting that lasting peace. There were a lot of Jews that owned land and property in gaza so you cant say that it did not belong to them. Israel will when the Palestinians agree peace terms and mutual borders as set down in the Geneva conventions. There can never be discusions on a two state solution while the arab muslims are making illegal demands and trying to force other nations into doing their dirty work for them. Doing so will lead to massive repurcusions for both parties.

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

Correct

No but gaza was the first step towards a lasting peace

Which the Palestinians don't want as they would lose the money they mooch. But the Geneva conventions say differently and they say the occupation ends once a peace deal is signed.

BULLSHIT

True but they seem to be the worst ones and the ones causing the most trouble.

Correct

BULLSHIT?

Ok Phoney... Like to tell me what Netanyahu has been quoted as saying about No Palestine?

What did the left of center parties have to say about No Palestine?

There are no "worst ones"...

Israel does not want peace... Because it will mean that they have to hand back occupied territory!

No Palestinian state under the present conditions

Israel is prepared to negotiate a peace deal that includes Jews living on Jewish owned land in the west bank

Define Jewish owned land in the West Bank...

If you mean settlers in occupied territory then... It's 'occupied' NOT 'owned'!

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

You keep saying that. Where were they after May 15, 1948 when they were to protect the people and land under their trust?

Do you have some links?

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

"The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere.." Right on. Like from Egypt & Jordan. And who said Tinmore is an imbecile?.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

"The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere.." Right on. Like from Egypt & Jordan. And who said Tinmore is an imbecile?.

How many came from Egypt?

How many came from Jordan?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission, which was succeeded by the UN Mediator.

You keep saying that. Where were they after May 15, 1948 when they were to protect the people and land under their trust?

Do you have some links?

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

Just where did the arab muslims come from prior to 635C.E. then. They did not come from Judea or Samaria did they. Or from Egypt and Syria they came from Saudi Arabia .
So who are the aggressors then who came from elsewhere ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

Because they did not come with the stated goal of taking over the country, they came with the stated goal of settling and living with the arab muslims as one nation. The arab muslims objected and decided that violence and aggression were the only answers.

Of course the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of "the country". The first Zionist document was "The Jewish State, An Attempt for a Modern Solution to the Jewish Question', (Der Judenstaat) was published on February 14, 1896.

".....the Jews, once settled in their own State, would probably have no more enemies. As for those who remain behind, since prosperity enfeebles and causes them to dimin ish, they would soon disappear altogether. I think the Jews will always have sufficient enemies, such as every nation has. But once fixed in their own land, it will no longer be possible for them to scatter all over the world. The diaspora cannot be reborn, unless the civilization of the whole easth should collapse; and such a consummation could be feared by none but foolish men. Our present civilization possesses weapons powerful enough for its self-defence...."

The Jewish State Theodor Herzl Jewish Virtual Library

Where does it say in your cut and paste that the Zionists stated goal was the takeover of the country ?

The title of Herzl's should be a clue, even to a dimwit like you.

Read Roccor's post and see what was written over 100 years ago has evolved into something else. Now it is the defence of Israel from violence, belligerence and terrorism from the arab muslims invaders.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The successor governments were generally hindered in their mission by the combatants to the conflict; predicated on the Arab Aggressor.

(COMMENT)

The links are marked in "blue" in the previous postings.

The successor to the UNPC --- the Mediator --- was involved in the arrangement of the ceasefire and subsequent Armistice Arrangements through the Truce Commission. In the case of most conflicts, the parties to the conflict are generally not protected by the UN but fall under customary law. The UN, once the conflict is ignited, most often sets the conditions for peace negotiation for which an armistice is just one phase.

The conflict, both the civil war prior to May 15, and the war of independence after May 15, were a products initiated and aggravated by hostile Arab activity; intended to disrupt the implementation of Resolution 181(II) which the general Arab Community found unsatisfactory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

"The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere.." Right on. Like from Egypt & Jordan. And who said Tinmore is an imbecile?.

The only people that came from elsewhere, another continent, were the European Jews. The Palestinians have been in Palestine for over a thousand years.

 

[Coyote]

I'm not sure that is a relevant question...

It does exist, so it is....

Finding a peaceful solution to what already exists is far better time spent than wasting time on debating the legitimacy of what is legitimate!

Tell it to the arab muslims as they are the ones with the NO JEWS charter

Been tried and the arab muslims made sure it failed, so what has changed in the last 10 years to show it wont fail again. They have been offered a two state solution and turned it down every time. So now Israel is saying what the arab muslims have been saying for the last 66 years and the islamonazi stooges don't like it.

When was a real two state solution tried?

2005 when Israel left gaza willingly and were bombarded with rockets all day every day. That was the first step on the road to peace agreed in 1999 at Oslo. So what have the Palestinians done again towards a permanent peace ?

Unfortunately Israel leaving Gaza is not a real two state solution is it...

That was Israel pulling out of territory that does not belong to them... As Israel needs to pull out of all occupied territory.

There can then be proper discussions on a two state solution.

Read Oslo and see what the first steps were towards a lasting peace, then get back and explain what the arab muslims did towards promoting that lasting peace. There were a lot of Jews that owned land and property in gaza so you cant say that it did not belong to them. Israel will when the Palestinians agree peace terms and mutual borders as set down in the Geneva conventions. There can never be discusions on a two state solution while the arab muslims are making illegal demands and trying to force other nations into doing their dirty work for them. Doing so will lead to massive repurcusions for both parties.

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

 

[Phoenall]

2005 when Israel left gaza willingly and were bombarded with rockets all day every day. That was the first step on the road to peace agreed in 1999 at Oslo. So what have the Palestinians done again towards a permanent peace ?

Unfortunately Israel leaving Gaza is not a real two state solution is it...

That was Israel pulling out of territory that does not belong to them... As Israel needs to pull out of all occupied territory.

There can then be proper discussions on a two state solution.

Read Oslo and see what the first steps were towards a lasting peace, then get back and explain what the arab muslims did towards promoting that lasting peace. There were a lot of Jews that owned land and property in gaza so you cant say that it did not belong to them. Israel will when the Palestinians agree peace terms and mutual borders as set down in the Geneva conventions. There can never be discusions on a two state solution while the arab muslims are making illegal demands and trying to force other nations into doing their dirty work for them. Doing so will lead to massive repurcusions for both parties.

I don't doubt that Jews owned land and property in Gaza...

But as I am sure you know, Oslo doesn't just mention Gaza does it.

There can never be a two state solution until occupied territory is unoccupied.

There will never be a two state solution whilst Israel remains right wing.

It is important to remember that it is not only the Arab Muslims who are the 'bad guys' here!

There will never be peace in the region until BOTH parties accept that they BOTH need to make some compromises!

Correct

No but gaza was the first step towards a lasting peace

Which the Palestinians don't want as they would lose the money they mooch. But the Geneva conventions say differently and they say the occupation ends once a peace deal is signed.

BULLSHIT

True but they seem to be the worst ones and the ones causing the most trouble.

Correct

BULLSHIT?

Ok Phoney... Like to tell me what Netanyahu has been quoted as saying about No Palestine?

What did the left of center parties have to say about No Palestine?

There are no "worst ones"...

Israel does not want peace... Because it will mean that they have to hand back occupied territory!

How about you tell me what the arab muslims have been saying about no Israel, No Jews, no talks, no peace etc.

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when foreigners came down from Europe with the stated goal of taking over the country. Then they proceeded to do just that.

I don't see how the Palestinians can be considered the aggressors.

There was no stated goal to take over nothing.

They are the aggressors for several reasons, the first one being that they started killing/massacring Jews before any Arab was killed.

Firstly, there is no way to tell who killed first. Some histories state that Palestinian shepherds were killed by Europeans when their sheep wandered onto Jewish farms. But who killed who first has no bearing.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere to settle land where people, that do not want foreign settlers, are already living. Your crazy notion would deem the Native Americans the aggressors because they may have killed a European before a European killed a Native American.

The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere...​

That is a standard principle. If the police are called for a fight at a house who do they haul off? The person who lives there stays. The person from elsewhere gets arrested.

"The aggressors are always those that come from elsewhere.." Right on. Like from Egypt & Jordan. And who said Tinmore is an imbecile?.

The only people that came from elsewhere, another continent, were the European Jews. The Palestinians have been in Palestine for over a thousand years.

Yes the Jews, but not the arab muslims as they were only invented in 627 C.E.