Palestinians Reject Two State Solution

[Hollie]

Well, 2,300 in one year multiplied by 56 years equals what?

Israel killed more Palestinians in 2014 than in any other year since 1967

Well, 2,300 in one year multiplied by 56 years equals what?

Israel killed more Palestinians in 2014 than in any other year since 1967

"Monty Math" is as ridiculous as your claim of 100,000 dead Arab-Moslem squatters.

2014 was an especially deadly year for Islamic terrorists, But, as we know, Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

 

[Phoenall]

In 1925 most of the individuals involved in the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin that took place in 1905, were still alive and had fought against the Imperial Navy. Doesn't mean the film was accurate. It was completely one-sided for the Communists. Just as "Cast the Shadow" glorifies the invasion of Palestine by Europeans and the defeat of the native non-Jews; making it appear that violent attacks on native non-Europeans by hostile invaders is just fine.

And yet you have no concrete evidence that they were "natives" do you, you are just going on the word of known liars

 

[Phoenall]

GLASNOST, Challenger, et al,

This timeframe is 1948. The UN was about 3 years old.

I have actually have mentioned it, but only in passing - as a matter of coercion and intimidate. It is a "bandwagon" effect by members which is a controversial issue.

BUT! You both are correct, in that a rarely mention it.

Rambling RoccoR seems to overlook there was no UN condemnation of the action by the neighboring states intervention to prevent the Zionists ethnically cleansing Palestine.

EXACTLY.

(COMMENT)

The General Assembly speaks out both sides of its mouth.

On the one-hand, I concede that the UN has passed some 100+ Resolutions against Israel in one form or another. That is a matter of record (See UN resolutions against Israel)(Dark Politrick). AND! Out of these 100+ Resolutions there are 40 ∑ that are either condemnations or demands.

I believe that these 100+ Resolution have attached stigma of "Crying Wolf." (Aesop's Fables) The UN publishes them as fast as the UN Palestine Mission / PLO Member write them. And what they have done is made so many that I don't read them any more. They all have the same theme, with the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) provoking an incident or event, the Israelis responding, and then they go parading the dead through the streets for the media exploitation (Huge Crocodile Tears) crying to the UN, Human Rights activities, all the NGO, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) --- with the mantra that they have had for the last century, whinning (in that high-pitched complaining cry that only the HoAP can muster) that the dirty rotten, thieving and conniving European Jew that mounted an armed invasion and took our land is trying to ethnically cleanse the region and take even more territory that has been theirs for thousands of years.

OK, I admit it. That I pay absolutely no attention to the whimpering howls and moans of the HoAP and the citizenry of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. All those resolutions have done is kill more trees and take more bandwidth. The HoAP and the Citizenry that support the Palestinian terrorist that follow Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, are NOT setting forth any conflict resolutions proposals. They are, in fact, advocating for more death and destruction; and acting up in a fashion that will require more security countermeasure.

OH, and yes, I do sometimes ramble.

Most Respectfully,
R

Correct, the conniving (connived with the British to have the Balfour Declaration issued) European Jews mounted an armed invasion and took most of the land that the ancestors of the native Middle Eastern Muslims and Christians had lived on for thousands of years. And are continuing grab up more and more of said land.

Yet they did not arrive armed for war did they, but armed for peace with farm tools. It was the arab muslims that were armed with deadly weapons and did not expect the Jewish invited migrants to respond to their violent attacks. When they did they cried foul and have been doing so ever since, when the Christians start fighting back then you might understand that it is the arab muslims all along

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine did not belong to Jews. It belonged to the native inhabitants, the Christians and Muslims that inhabited the land for thousands of years before the European invasion. Let's get that straight. This idea that a bunch of people in Europe claiming to be of a particular religion, had the right to expel or otherwise eliminate the inhabitants of a place because of some myth, is ridiculous.

Let's try this again....

You don't think "Palestine did not belong to the Jews" erases Jewish history??
You don't think "(the land) belonged to the native ... Christians and Muslims..." erases Jewish history?
You don't think "because of some myth" erases Jewish history?

And I have never argued that anyone has the right to expel or eliminate anyone else. Indeed, though, you seem to feel that the Palestinians have the right to destroy the existing State of Israel and expel or otherwise eliminate the current inhabitants.

1. Correct, Palestine, did not belong to the Zionist. It belonged to the inhabitants, who happened to be Muslim and Christian at the time of the invasion. How could Palestine have belonged to Europeans?

2. Palestine belonged to the inhabitants who were overwhelmingly either Muslim or Christian at the start of the Zionist invasion. Who else could it have belonged to?

3. Of course it's a myth that Europeans that happen to have converted to Judaism had anything to do with Jewish history.

Apparently you believe that the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans was justified and that the conquered people have no right to resist their current second-class status. I am not promoting the expulsion of the Jewish inhabitants, the crime was committed and there is nothing that can be done about the current demographics. What should happen, now that a state for the Palestinian cannot be created practically a single state should be a secular state for all the people of Palestine, like any normal modern western state.

So what happened to the majority Jews in your fantasy tale, did they just cease to exist

According to the Ottoman census at that time the Jews were overwhelmingly the majority of the inhabitants

Yes it is , one made up and touted by the islamonazi's and neonazi's to demonise the Jews. The Jewish history as wrote down by Roman, Greek and islamic scribes 2000 years ago is fact that you cant dispute as you have no first hand experience to use as rebutal


You still have not proved that the Jews invaded palestine as two historical facts stand in your way
1 The Jews were invited to migrate and colonise the land by the Ottomans around 1850

2 The Jews were invited to migrate and close colonise the land by the LoN in around 1920

Both these facts destroy your invasion theory

Your pushing for a single state is calling for the ethnic cleansing of the Jews as there would be nothing to prevent an armed invasion by the muslims from the surrounding area and wiping out the Jews

 

[Hossfly]

Oh, the Zionist propaganda site par excellence. The Jewish Virtual Library is where you get your facts? What an asshole you are. LOL

Why don't you call your Pro Pali friends assholes when they use this site? Actually, you are too dim to realize it, but you calling people assholes, morons, idiots says an awful lot about you and not them.

 

[montelatici]

So, if someone quoted Electronic Intifada as the source supporting an assertion you would accept it as a neutral source? You are not only a hypocrite, but also a dimwit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yet they did not arrive armed for war did they,

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, if someone quoted Electronic Intifada as the source supporting an assertion you would accept it as a neutral source? You are not only a hypocrite, but also a dimwit.

The Jewish Virtual Library and the Electronic Intifada are both good sites. They both have their own political bent but both try to be accurate. I don't think either one is a hate site.

 

[montelatici]

I don't trust either.

 

[Hossfly]

So, if someone quoted Electronic Intifada as the source supporting an assertion you would accept it as a neutral source? You are not only a hypocrite, but also a dimwit.

Unlike you, I don't go around calling people ass holes and others names because of the sources they use. As I stated previously, your name calling tells an awful lot about you and not the posters who are the recipients of the names. Meanwhile, look in the mirror to see a hypocrite and dimwit.

Since you obviously are going to park yourself on this forum today, I hope you brought a healthy snack to keep you going.

 

[Phoenall]

Yet they did not arrive armed for war did they,

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military.

Then produce the link to the British military that says this ?

Without it you are just a bare faced liar

 

[teddyearp]

Well, you are competing for the dumbest.LOL It wasn't MJ posted an article about the Greek Orthodox Church firing a Palestinian Archbishop and his comment was:

"It is truly sad that Muslim Palestinians cannot even get along with fellow Christian Palestinians."

It wasn't MJB that posted it? Your link below shows that it was MJB that started the thread. So which is it?

Oh, another poster pointed this out to MJ first, not me.

"You realize that the Palestinian Archbishop is a Christian? Did you think that a muslim was the archbishop of a Christian church?"

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15987752/

You win the dumbest prize, moron.

I do see your twist on this mini argument, my point in it was only that MJB did not use the term "Muslim Archbishop" which you seemed to have credited him with.

But that's OK. I am done splitting hairs and getting off the topic here. I will be the moron if that makes you feel as smart as you want to be.

 

[montelatici]

The ceaseless attempt to defend the indefensible extends beyond Israel's actions to the actions of Israel Firsters. MJB posted the article to assert that Muslim and Christians Palestinians were unable to to get along. The parties involved in the article were the Greek Orthodox Church's leader in Palestine and a Palestinian archbishop. So, MJB believed one of the parties was Muslim and the other Christian. So, MJB believed that either the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church was Muslim and the archbishop Christian or that the archbishop was Christian and the leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in Palestine was Muslim. Take your pick.

 

[teddyearp]

Since when are Hollywood movies based on "true studies"? LOL

There have been many movies based on actual events. Don't forget also there were many people alive who took part in this Israeli/Arab War who could tell the scriptwriters what actually happened. Maybe in your neck of the wood you can find some who participated. They might be in their late eighties and nineties by now, but can tell you what happened and that the movie followed the truth. Perhaps you can get away from the computer for a time and watch the movie yourself. By the way, Colonel David "Mickey" Marcus is the only person buried at West Point who fought for a foreign country.

David 'Mickey' Marcus | HistoryNet

I have also watched the movie, "Cast a Giant Shadow". Sure it is somewhat fictionalized, but it is based upon true events. The lead actor, Kirk Douglas, who plays David 'Mickey' Marcus is actually a Jew as well.

But to add credence to Marcus, here is a picture of the memorial that is along the road to Be'er Sheeva in Israel:




Look in the left column, ninth name down.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yet they did not arrive armed for war did they,

Yes they did. They mooched Britain's military.

Then produce the link to the British military that says this ?

Without it you are just a bare faced liar

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

This image of the Arab is still with use today. Whether we picture them settling bombs off in restaurants, suicide bombers on a crowed beach, kidnapping and murdering teenagers, or sending a laser-guided missile into the side of a school bus, the image that the name of the Arab Palestinians invokes is one of sheer barbarism.

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

(COMMENT)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. Border transgressions by the Ikhwan (Arab nomadic tribesmen which made up the first Saudi Army) necessitated the British Army to keep an installation, with RAF Air Support, near the Capital of Amman.

The British maintained a military presence in Jordan all through the term of the Mandate; and even after the 1946 Independence. Granted, they were in a more reduced form, and that is because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

The Arab Palestinians, West of the Jordan River, were uncooperative and declined or rejected every overture made to them, because it was exclusive to them.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Oh, the Zionist propaganda site par excellence. The Jewish Virtual Library is where you get your facts? What an asshole you are. LOL

Why don't you call your Pro Pali friends assholes when they use this site? Actually, you are too dim to realize it, but you calling people assholes, morons, idiots says an awful lot about you and not them.

Goes to prove when the argument is lost, all that is left is to call the opposition derogatory names.

 

[P F Tinmore]

because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

What does that have to do with the military? Was Palestine under threat by any of its neighbors?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

This image of the Arab is still with use today. Whether we picture them settling bombs off in restaurants, suicide bombers on a crowed beach, kidnapping and murdering teenagers, or sending a laser-guided missile into the side of a school bus, the image that the name of the Arab Palestinians invokes is one of sheer barbarism.

Not in so many words, but when Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Transjordan they withdrew their forces leaving a few advisors behind.

When Britain changed from an occupying power to a Mandate in Palestine they kept their military force.

Why the difference?

(COMMENT)

On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. Border transgressions by the Ikhwan (Arab nomadic tribesmen which made up the first Saudi Army) necessitated the British Army to keep an installation, with RAF Air Support, near the Capital of Amman.

The British maintained a military presence in Jordan all through the term of the Mandate; and even after the 1946 Independence. Granted, they were in a more reduced form, and that is because the Trans-Jordan was, through cooperation and education (Tutelage) better able to stand alone.

The Arab Palestinians, West of the Jordan River, were uncooperative and declined or rejected every overture made to them, because it was exclusive to them.

Most Respectfully,
R

This hate-filled racist crap you spout is getting annoying. Like killing thousands of women and children like the Israelis do every two years ago or so isn't barbarism you jerk off. Or Churchill gassing the Arabs in Iraq. You are disgusting.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well, that is a matter of perception. One of those perceptions was the savagery for witch the Arabs were known.

Link?