Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered

[member]

Where do Palestinians get the "right" to send, train and pay suicide bombers and launch rockets into Israel?

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary.

Look it up.

In fact, there is nos such right. You just like the Idea of killing Jews and you think everyone should have the right to kill some Jews.

It appears you did not look it up.

It appears you made it up.

The Palestinian people were among the few peoples in the world that the United Nations had recognized as being entitled to use all means necessary to achieve their self-determination.

Human Rights Council adopts resolution calling for cessation of Israeli mlitary attacks in OPT and of firing of crude rockets - Human Rights Council 7th Session (6 March, pm session) - Press release (excerpts) (10 March 2008)

"being entitled to use all means necessary to achieve their self-determination.

yes, "self determination" . . .to blowout their eyeballs. palestinians will ALWAYS and forever be associated with TERRORISM -- cause....they ARE terrorists. also, terrorists being "elected" as the palestinian peoples' Government. [how pathetic is that?]. HamASS....

 

[P F Tinmore]

Don't be absurd. Of course there is a difference. Poland was an established State and had an international boundary with Germany.

Palestine has no international boundary with Israel. The boundary has yet to be determined through negotiation and a peace treaty.

That is one of the main points of a peace process. To establish the boundary.

Those people have been living there for generations and they have rights. You don't need a country with borders to have human rights. Rights, BTW, Israel has taken away.

And of coarse it is like Germany and Poland. You started a war with Egypt, who does have an international boundary. Then you took land you have no sovereign title to. And you never will.

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Oh my!

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary.

Look it up.

In fact, there is nos such right. You just like the Idea of killing Jews and you think everyone should have the right to kill some Jews.

It appears you did not look it up.

It appears you made it up.

The Palestinian people were among the few peoples in the world that the United Nations had recognized as being entitled to use all means necessary to achieve their self-determination.

Human Rights Council adopts resolution calling for cessation of Israeli mlitary attacks in OPT and of firing of crude rockets - Human Rights Council 7th Session (6 March, pm session) - Press release (excerpts) (10 March 2008)

"being entitled to use all means necessary to achieve their self-determination.

yes, "self determination" . . .to blowout their eyeballs. palestinians will ALWAYS and forever be associated with TERRORISM -- cause....they ARE terrorists. also, terrorists being "elected" as the palestinian peoples' Government. [how pathetic is that?]. HamASS....

Oh jeese, more of Israrl's terrorist propaganda campaign.

 

[Shusha]

Don't be absurd. Of course there is a difference. Poland was an established State and had an international boundary with Germany.

Palestine has no international boundary with Israel. The boundary has yet to be determined through negotiation and a peace treaty.

That is one of the main points of a peace process. To establish the boundary.

Those people have been living there for generations and they have rights. You don't need a country with borders to have human rights. Rights, BTW, Israel has taken away.

And of coarse it is like Germany and Poland. You started a war with Egypt, who does have an international boundary. Then you took land you have no sovereign title to. And you never will.

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Oh my!

The Arab Palestinians want all of Palestine and to exclude the Jewish Palestinians.

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ This is what the Arab Palestinians teach about all of Israel. They call Israel.....Palestine, and theirs ]

Palestinian Authority TV documentary presents Israel's coastal cities as "Palestine"
------------------
Statue of map of “Palestine” in Fatah official’s office
Source: Official Fatah Facebook page, Apr. 18, 2018

-------

Monument to “Martyrs” of the refugee camp in Qalandiya shaped like map of “Palestine” erasing Israel
Source: Official Palestinian Authority TV, Apr. 11, 2018

--------------

Image on Fatah’s official Facebook page shows a group of people marching with a Palestinian flag toward a map of "Palestine" which replaces all of Israel
Source: Fatah's Facebook page, Apr. 6, 2018

-----------------------

Yes, Palestinians want all of Palestine, which to them includes ALL of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

Don't be absurd. Of course there is a difference. Poland was an established State and had an international boundary with Germany.

Palestine has no international boundary with Israel. The boundary has yet to be determined through negotiation and a peace treaty.

That is one of the main points of a peace process. To establish the boundary.

Those people have been living there for generations and they have rights. You don't need a country with borders to have human rights. Rights, BTW, Israel has taken away.

And of coarse it is like Germany and Poland. You started a war with Egypt, who does have an international boundary. Then you took land you have no sovereign title to. And you never will.

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Palestinians want all of Palestine?

Oh my!

Of course the Arabs-moslems want all of Pal'istan. That, despite the fact that Arabs-Moslems never owned all of the geographic area. They also want it purged of non-islamics. They believe the geographic area is a religious entitlement, an endowment or waqf, promised by the religions inventor.

Fortunately, one small are of muhammedan'istan has enjoyed the benefits of a modern, educated society: Israel, which stands in rather stark contrast to the economic, social and cultural wasteland that exists where Islamism controls.

 

[danielpalos]

Any "retiring field marshals" want to make a case for a Deylicate in Palestine?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

I know many people believe that the ICJ said this. But "illegal" (prohibited) and "contrary to international law" (holding an opposite position) are not quite the same thing.

Whether you call it a ruling, or an advisory opinion, it means the same thing. The wall is illegal according to international law. You cannot build structures on someone else's property, without their permission.

(COMMENT)

The "opinion" is not a requirement on Israel to take some action. Israel was NOT a party in a case before the court.

The court cannot pronounce the wall illegal, when the court did not rule on the were the boundaries are (if any) since the Armistice Lines were only in force until a treaty was put in place.

And, you simplified explanationsuggests a required permission. There was on Arab Palestinian permission noted in the ICJ Opinion. The Israeli occupation follwed the Jordanian Sovereignty (in the case of the West Bank) and an Egyptian Military Governorship (in the case of the Gaza Strip).

The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”).​

You just blindly repeat something someonesaid without any personal understanding of what was said.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[member]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

I know many people believe that the ICJ said this. But "illegal" (prohibited) and "contrary to international law" (holding an opposite position) are not quite the same thing.

Whether you call it a ruling, or an advisory opinion, it means the same thing. The wall is illegal according to international law. You cannot build structures on someone else's property, without their permission.

(COMMENT)

The "opinion" is not a requirement on Israel to take some action. Israel was NOT a party in a case before the court.

The court cannot pronounce the wall illegal, when the court did not rule on the were the boundaries are (if any) since the Armistice Lines were only in force until a treaty was put in place.

And, you simplified explanationsuggests a required permission. There was on Arab Palestinian permission noted in the ICJ Opinion. The Israeli occupation follwed the Jordanian Sovereignty (in the case of the West Bank) and an Egyptian Military Governorship (in the case of the Gaza Strip).

The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”).​

You just blindly repeat something someonesaid without any personal understanding of what was said.

Most Respectfully,
R

LoL.

(You just blindly repeat something someone said without any personal understanding of what was said.)

 

[Billo_Really]

Again, your retreat.

And still another off topic, derailing post.

 

[Billo_Really]

Read the post again.
If bold denial is Your main retreat then You're already on the defense.
Because we both know Your retreat is ridiculous.

This is Beit Ummar...




Q. So how many Arab countries do You think want to be publicly associated with and fight for that flag as a symbol of 'Arab Muslim honor'?

I think it will be the Arab neighbors themselves who'll make the biggest impact on the situation. In the long run - that's more of an obstacle for them than for Israel.

Arab neighbors are not occupying land that is not theirs. Israel is. The occupation needs to end. That is the only "deal" on the table.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Mandate did not give Israel the land they seized in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. We didn't let Germany keep Poland and we're not going to let you keep the land you took in that war.

How clearer can I make this?

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course the Arabs-moslems want all of Pal'istan. That, despite the fact that Arabs-Moslems never owned all of the geographic area. They also want it purged of non-islamics. They believe the geographic area is a religious entitlement, an endowment or waqf, promised by the religions inventor.

Fortunately, one small are of muhammedan'istan has enjoyed the benefits of a modern, educated society: Israel, which stands in rather stark contrast to the economic, social and cultural wasteland that exists where Islamism controls.

Wrong!

 

[Hollie]

Of course the Arabs-moslems want all of Pal'istan. That, despite the fact that Arabs-Moslems never owned all of the geographic area. They also want it purged of non-islamics. They believe the geographic area is a religious entitlement, an endowment or waqf, promised by the religions inventor.

Fortunately, one small are of muhammedan'istan has enjoyed the benefits of a modern, educated society: Israel, which stands in rather stark contrast to the economic, social and cultural wasteland that exists where Islamism controls.

Wrong!

No. It’s demonstrably true.

 

[Billo_Really]

RE: Saudi prince: Maybe the Palestinians should’ve taken the deals they were offered
※→ Billo_Really, et al,

I know many people believe that the ICJ said this. But "illegal" (prohibited) and "contrary to international law" (holding an opposite position) are not quite the same thing.

Doing something contrary to international law, is doing something illegal.

The "opinion" is not a requirement on Israel to take some action. Israel was NOT a party in a case before the court.

Doesn't matter. 242 tells Israel to take action and Israel has refused to honor that.

The court cannot pronounce the wall illegal, when the court did not rule on the were the boundaries are (if any) since the Armistice Lines were only in force until a treaty was put in place.

The court pronounced the wall illegal, because it collectively punishes the Palestinian population living around it. And collective punishment is a crime against humanity.

And, you simplified explanationsuggests a required permission. There was on Arab Palestinian permission noted in the ICJ Opinion. The Israeli occupation follwed the Jordanian Sovereignty (in the case of the West Bank) and an Egyptian Military Governorship (in the case of the Gaza Strip).

80% of the wall is built in the West Bank. The West Bank is not Israeli property. You cannot build a structure on someone else's property without their permission. In addition, you cannot build a structure on property that is not yours.

The request does not ask or require the ICJ to pronounce itself on Israel/Palestine boundaries. In order to answer the question the ICJ needs only to take account of the fact that the Wall is being built by Israel in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, beyond the Armistice Line of 1949 (the “Green Line”).

It doesn't have to.

You just blindly repeat something someonesaid without any personal understanding of what was said.

Most Respectfully,
R

Go **** yourself!

 

[Billo_Really]

No. It’s demonstrably true.

No it isn't. They just want the occupation to end. They just want freedom.

 

[USAF 2023]

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Mandate did not give Israel the land they seized in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. We didn't let Germany keep Poland and we're not going to let you keep the land you took in that war.

How clearer can I make this?

Germany initiated the War, you Asshole. That is the difference. How clearer can I make this?

 

[Shusha]

The Mandate did not give Israel the land they seized in the '67 war....

Um. Actually it did. The entire territory was mandated to be the NATIONal homeland for the Jewish people. Period. Full stop. There is no possible alternate interpretation of the relevant documentation and treaties.

The conflict arising between 1948 and 1967 was a direct result of Jordan and Egypt invading territory which did not belong to them and crossing international boundaries between their territory and territory belonging to the State of Israel. Its the very no-no we are discussing. Neither Jordan nor Egypt can win territory in war and they both, rightly, rescinded all claim to the territory when they signed peace treaties with Israel which demarcated the boundaries between their territory and Israel's.

The 1967 conflict between Arab States and Israel is absolutely irrelevant to the current conflict between Israel and an arising Arab Palestinian population wishing self-determination and secession from Israel/Palestine.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Arab Palestinians have been there for generations and do have rights. Never have I disputed that.

Their rights do not extend to unilaterally claiming an international border between themselves and another sovereign nation. International borders are created through treaties between the Parties concerned.

Nor do their rights extend to the destruction of another sovereign nation.

Israel has an ironclad legal claim to all of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine (Jordan excepted). Israel chooses not exercise her rights over her entire claim as a specific acknowledgement of Arab Palestinian rights to a territory of heir own.

But Arab Palestinians don't seem capable of making a sovereign claim over their share because they are still too hung up on claiming the entire territory for themselves and ripping the hearts out of Jews.

The Mandate did not give Israel the land they seized in the '67 war. You cannot hold onto land seized in a war. We didn't let Germany keep Poland and we're not going to let you keep the land you took in that war.

How clearer can I make this?

Germany initiated the War, you Asshole. That is the difference. How clearer can I make this?

My friends,

Billo is a Catholic. Irish.

He lives in a world where Jews are still and should forever be under Christian foot.

Jews do not deserve a Sovereign State because Jews do not deserve a home, ever.

The only things Jews deserve are the pogroms which led to the Inquisition, which led to more pogroms, which led to the Holocaust.

A few Jews being killed here and there, is not right for him.

The world HAS the right to attack Jews for the simple reason that Christianity has decided that they should not have a home.

Jews belong to Christians in Europe, Americans, Australia, etc

Jews belong to Muslims in the Arab conquered lands outside Arabia.

Jews, get used to it and give up the game of ever thinking that some day you can escape Christianity and Islam's decrees on you.

Jews belong not to themselves, ever.


A few Saudi Princes, and other Muslims and Christians is not ever going to change the world Billo and others will forever live in.

In other words, DO NOT BOTHER with Billo.


There is nothing there.

 

[Hollie]

No. It’s demonstrably true.

No it isn't. They just want the occupation to end. They just want freedom.

Do yourself a favor and read the Hamas charter. You will notice the charter makes no mention of “occupation”.

It does, however, repeatedly cite Islamist religious proscriptions for Jew hatreds and fascist ideals of Islamist entitlement to lands conquered during gee-had.

It’s odd that people “who just want freedom” voted in the very dictators who oppress them.