The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[irosie91]

beware UNIVERSALIST MOVEMENTS -----they are often FASCIST DRIVEN. Virtually
every genocide in the history of mankind was driven by a TOTALITARIAN
UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY ------all the way back to the very sick concept of PAX ROMANA

(they all sound good-----and end up with genocide)

 

[ima]

The gravest threat to world peace would have to be irosie opening her legs real wide.

 

[georgephillip]

The Israeli/Palestinian Confederation is one of the latest attempts to break the current two-state/one-state dilemma in Palestine:

"The brain-child of an Encino attorney named Josef Avesar, the event featured a panel of prominent intellectuals seeking an alternative route to the Road Map, supposedly because it is not working.

"John Van De Kamp, a former LA district attorney, hosted the panel, which was filled out by a panoply of Arab intellectuals dressed in suits from the American university scene, a Middle East studies department head from UC Santa Barbara, a representative from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and even an ex-Israeli general, Shlomo Gazit, one of the architects of the Oslo peace process and by all appearances there to fill the role of a token Jewish speaker.

The Israeli-Palestinian Confederation: Another Scam to Dismantle Israel

Since Israel claims to be more comfortable working with a Jordanian/Palestinian Confederation, a sovereign Palestinian state forming a confederation with Jordan might be a useful step in bringing Peace to the West Bank?

That was a great article by Lee, Kaplan exposing that group, Georgie Boy. I didn't think you had in in you to ever post an article like that -- unless of course you didn't read the entire article.

Kaplan's title revealed his bias.
I'm not too surprised he didn't mention the 650,000 Jews who inflicted a Jewish State upon 1.2 million Arabs in 1948.
Are you?

 

[Hossfly]

The Israeli/Palestinian Confederation is one of the latest attempts to break the current two-state/one-state dilemma in Palestine:

"The brain-child of an Encino attorney named Josef Avesar, the event featured a panel of prominent intellectuals seeking an alternative route to the Road Map, supposedly because it is not working.

"John Van De Kamp, a former LA district attorney, hosted the panel, which was filled out by a panoply of Arab intellectuals dressed in suits from the American university scene, a Middle East studies department head from UC Santa Barbara, a representative from the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and even an ex-Israeli general, Shlomo Gazit, one of the architects of the Oslo peace process and by all appearances there to fill the role of a token Jewish speaker.

The Israeli-Palestinian Confederation: Another Scam to Dismantle Israel

Since Israel claims to be more comfortable working with a Jordanian/Palestinian Confederation, a sovereign Palestinian state forming a confederation with Jordan might be a useful step in bringing Peace to the West Bank?

That was a great article by Lee, Kaplan exposing that group, Georgie Boy. I didn't think you had in in you to ever post an article like that -- unless of course you didn't read the entire article.

Kaplan's title revealed his bias.
I'm not too surprised he didn't mention the 650,000 Jews who inflicted a Jewish State upon 1.2 million Arabs in 1948.
Are you?

I think you didn't read the article yourself, or else you wouldn't have posted it. Meanwhile, while you keep blabbering about the Arabs that were there, you never mention the fact that the majority swarmed into Israel from their impoverished countries when the Jews had jobs for them. Why do you think the Hispanics have crossed our Southern border and their population has swelled here. However if it makes you feel good to keep on stating about all those Arabs who weren't even there at the beginning in the first place, go for it.

 

[georgephillip]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

 

[irosie91]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

That would make sense since up until the time of ATATURK shariah law
was in effect in "palestine" after the invasion and oppressive occupation
of that land by FOREIGNERS FROM ARABIA Sharian law being what
it is ----oppressive to the point of genocide-----the jewish population was
further decimated Once the Ottomans eased the restrictions and oppressions
and the filth you love of SHARIAH oppression-----jews started returning to their
home-land. The demographics of many lands were markedly altered by the
extensive islamic genocides Khartoum is now --essentially an ARAB COLONY
in a country of black subsaharans ----that had been largely christianized in the
early AD era The most prominent people there ---ie the "RULERS"
are actually ethnic and genetic ARABS ruling over the enslaved Nubians
The good news is that despite people like you----SOUTH SUDAN
managed to survive the filth you so love. If people like you ran the world ---
the people of Khartoum would still be selling the native nubians of sudan
to their clients in arabia and other colonies of arabia in North Africa or even
to sugar plantations in South america. Lots of islamo nazi pigs are pissed off
over the fact that SOUTH SUDAN was STOLEN away from arab imperialism,
and by SLAVES, no less Gee you are disgusting

 

[ima]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

That would make sense since up until the time of ATATURK shariah law
was in effect in "palestine" after the invasion and oppressive occupation
of that land by FOREIGNERS FROM ARABIA Sharian law being what
it is ----oppressive to the point of genocide-----the jewish population was
further decimated Once the Ottomans eased the restrictions and oppressions
and the filth you love of SHARIAH oppression-----jews started returning to their
home-land. The demographics of many lands were markedly altered by the
extensive islamic genocides Khartoum is now --essentially an ARAB COLONY
in a country of black subsaharans ----that had been largely christianized in the
early AD era The most prominent people there ---ie the "RULERS"
are actually ethnic and genetic ARABS ruling over the enslaved Nubians
The good news is that despite people like you----SOUTH SUDAN
managed to survive the filth you so love. If people like you ran the world ---
the people of Khartoum would still be selling the native nubians of sudan
to their clients in arabia and other colonies of arabia in North Africa or even
to sugar plantations in South america. Lots of islamo nazi pigs are pissed off
over the fact that SOUTH SUDAN was STOLEN away from arab imperialism,
and by SLAVES, no less Gee you are disgusting

Just curious iro, do your ravings and rantings even make any sense to you?

 

[georgephillip]

"The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.


"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

Is sherri endorsing this post because it red-flags the fact
that the BALFOUR DECLARATION GALVANIZED deadly
pogroms ---not only in palestine but in other SHARIAH SHIT HOLES

 

[georgephillip]

How many Rothschilds were killed?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

The assumption here is that:

1. That establishment of Israel was contingent upon those that "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That the "Arabs always had a majority" is somehow a necessary and sufficient condition for the prevention of the Jewish Homeland.

Unspoken here, but certainly implied, is that the majority (the Arab Palestinians):

1. Has more inherent rights than any immigrant; the "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That only the majority has the right of self-determination and the right to establish a homeland.

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

(COMMENT)

I've also noticed, during the course of the discussions, that:

• The Arab Palestinian insists that there is no objection raised to the incorporation of the 70%+ of the British Mandate to Jordan, a separate sovereignty, but there was an inordinate objection to the half of the remaining 30%(-) for the establishment of the Jewish homeland. (Somehow the Allied Powers have the right to carve-out territory for an Arab State of Jordan --- and that is OK --- that is different. But then they don't have the authority to carve-out a Jewish State; that is somehow wrong.)
• The Arab Palestinian insists it had some sovereign tie (historical control) to the territory, over and beyond that of the Mandate by the Allied Powers, that of the Ottomans, that of the Mamelukes before them, that of the Filastin, or Pompey, or Alexander the Great, or Cyrus the Great, or the Babylonian, or the Assyrians, or King David of the Israelites, or even the Canaanites, when the historical lineage of control was clearly always another. And so, the Palestinian claims to have been slighted by the Allied Powers of their territorial right to control; a control the Palestinian never had going back 3000 years. They constantly refer to it as "their land" and constantly say Britain didn't own it and had no right to give it away. When was it ever under the Palestinians right and control? (Never!)

I have often heard, in these discussions, talk about borders. When did the Palestinians establish borders, and when was their Kingdom established? Who was their first ruler and how did he (she, it) come to control Palestine. Other than that afforded the Palestinian in UN GA Res 181 (II), when did the Rulers of Palestine ever grant the opportunity for the Palestinians to exercise self-rule? (I think maybe never. Yet in the one time they are granted that option, they get greedy and rejected it.)

I am just amazed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Mr R be not amazed----the "borders" arguement is one of
desperation ----the "swarmed in from europe" arguement is
racist. In the early 1900s----in NEW YORK CITY---similar comments were being made of southern blacks "SWARMING"
into the city ---In fact similar comments were made about
SWARMING-IN irish immigrants in the history of the US.
We have managed to rise above that sort of crap.
Racist pigs always SEE ----the presence of those they despise
as an ATTACK. The part most interesting to me is the
"from europe" thing, most certainly does not describe the
entire or even almost the entire or even the majority of
the jewish immigrants

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

What have you heard?

How many Rothschilds were killed?

v/r
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

The assumption here is that:

1. That establishment of Israel was contingent upon those that "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That the "Arabs always had a majority" is somehow a necessary and sufficient condition for the prevention of the Jewish Homeland.

Unspoken here, but certainly implied, is that the majority (the Arab Palestinians):

1. Has more inherent rights than any immigrant; the "swarmed in from Europe."
2. That only the majority has the right of self-determination and the right to establish a homeland.

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

(COMMENT)

I've also noticed, during the course of the discussions, that:

• The Arab Palestinian insists that there is no objection raised to the incorporation of the 70%+ of the British Mandate to Jordan, a separate sovereignty, but there was an inordinate objection to the half of the remaining 30%(-) for the establishment of the Jewish homeland. (Somehow the Allied Powers have the right to carve-out territory for an Arab State of Jordan --- and that is OK --- that is different. But then they don't have the authority to carve-out a Jewish State; that is somehow wrong.)
• The Arab Palestinian insists it had some sovereign tie (historical control) to the territory, over and beyond that of the Mandate by the Allied Powers, that of the Ottomans, that of the Mamelukes before them, that of the Filastin, or Pompey, or Alexander the Great, or Cyrus the Great, or the Babylonian, or the Assyrians, or King David of the Israelites, or even the Canaanites, when the historical lineage of control was clearly always another. And so, the Palestinian claims to have been slighted by the Allied Powers of their territorial right to control; a control the Palestinian never had going back 3000 years. They constantly refer to it as "their land" and constantly say Britain didn't own it and had no right to give it away. When was it ever under the Palestinians right and control? (Never!)

I have often heard, in these discussions, talk about borders. When did the Palestinians establish borders, and when was their Kingdom established? Who was their first ruler and how did he (she, it) come to control Palestine. Other than that afforded the Palestinian in UN GA Res 181 (II), when did the Rulers of Palestine ever grant the opportunity for the Palestinians to exercise self-rule? (I think maybe never. Yet in the one time they are granted that option, they get greedy and rejected it.)

I am just amazed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco... does it follow that an Arab majority in Mandate Palestine was a sufficient and necessary condition for the prevention of a Jewish State? Over 700,000 Arabs left, fled, or were expelled from homes and businesses (and bank accounts) in 1948. Some of the refugees had deeds to land and other properties their families had controlled for generations. The fact that a sovereign state of Palestine did not issue the deeds doesn't appear relevant to whether or not the properties were stolen by Jews.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

What have you heard?

How many Rothschilds were killed?

v/r
R

Not enough(?)

 

[Hossfly]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

You can have your ideas on what happened, and others can have theirs.

The Jews took no one?s land

 

[Hossfly]

"The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.


"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Balfour Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You really are pathetic, Georgie Boy, pulling up the same stuff over and over and over again. Why not give us some of the latest news which is happening in the Muslim world?

Israel Today | Israel News | Palestinians desecrate Jewish holy site - Israel Today | Israel News

Ancient Manuscripts Torched by Radical Islamists - Global Agenda - News - Israel National News

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Rocco... does it follow that an Arab majority in Mandate Palestine was a sufficient and necessary condition for the prevention of a Jewish State?

(COMMENT)

Actually, no it doesn't. While their is a popular view the the majority has the right to suppress the needs and rights of the minority; philosophically that is unsound. If that were the case, the rights of Black Americans would never have been realized in the 20th Century (as an example used in a couple of these threads). The Arab majority does not have the right to suppress the destiny of the Jewish minority, especially when the majority does not have a leadership role in the administration of the territory.

Over 700,000 Arabs left, fled, or were expelled from homes and businesses (and bank accounts) in 1948. Some of the refugees had deeds to land and other properties their families had controlled for generations. The fact that a sovereign state of Palestine did not issue the deeds doesn't appear relevant to whether or not the properties were stolen by Jews.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I acknowledge this. I have also had older Arab Palestinians tell me that many left because they thought that the conflict would be over quickly and they would all return in a matter of weeks; if not days.

Again, property ownership is a different thing from national sovereignty. A change in national sovereignty does not impact the private ownership. The deed is the deed; without regard to when it was issued or what sovereignty recorded it. The deed is a record of transfer and ownership and is evidence of a valid claim. If there is a case of theft (war profiteering or land exploitation), then that is a criminal and civil suite. And the claim is made in court, and the validity of the evidence is examined. If found in favor of the plaintiff, restitution must be made.

This is hard to do when the sovereignty is at war or under siege by insurgencies. But don't confuse the two issue. The establishment of a Jewish State doesn't alter the private ownership of property [Arab, Jewish or Martian (owned by little green men)]. It is illegal for the sovereignty to confiscate private property except in rare cases of eminent domain, or --- in cases where the property is used to commit serious crimes.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

You can have your ideas on what happened, and others can have theirs.

The Jews took no one?s land

"This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world."

Except for the historical fact that 650,000 Jews uprooted an equal number of Arabs in 1948 when the "chosen people" inflicted a Jewish state upon 1.2 million Arabs and others. Your Middle Eastern mythology is as wanting as your commitment to the First Amendment.

The Jews took no one?s land

 

[SAYIT]

Most of the Jews swarmed in from Europe.
Arabs always had a majority in Mandate Palestine prior to al-Nakba.

You can have your ideas on what happened, and others can have theirs.

The Jews took no one?s land

"This is the modern real history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. At no time did the Jews uproot Arab families from their homes. When there were title deeds to be purchased, they bought them at inflated prices. When there were not, they worked the land so they could have a place to live without the persecution they faced throughout the world."

Except for the historical fact that 650,000 Jews uprooted an equal number of Arabs in 1948 when the "chosen people"...

The Jews took no one?s land

No, they did not.