The Gravest Threat to World Peace

[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

"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

Perhaps Georgie Boy can tell us whether he has a huge research department in his apartment where the people who come in every day are so knowledgeable that they tell him everything that happened in the past. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy, no matter how many times you bring it up, it doesn't mean that there were all these Arabs there for years and years and years. They drifted in, the same way you see others drifting into your own town. Even the Egyptians themselves mention that many of the Palestinians come from Egypt. Do you honestly think that Los Angeles is the same town that it was when you were brought here? If you do, then you are very naive. Now, of course, Georgie Boy is going to give us some sites where people who traveled through the area saw all these Arabs running around. If anyone can do it, Georgie Boy, I know you can do it.

 

[ima]

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

Perhaps Georgie Boy can tell us whether he has a huge research department in his apartment where the people who come in every day are so knowledgeable that they tell him everything that happened in the past. Meanwhile, Georgie Boy, no matter how many times you bring it up, it doesn't mean that there were all these Arabs there for years and years and years. They drifted in, the same way you see others drifting into your own town. Even the Egyptians themselves mention that many of the Palestinians come from Egypt. Do you honestly think that Los Angeles is the same town that it was when you were brought here? If you do, then you are very naive. Now, of course, Georgie Boy is going to give us some sites where people who traveled through the area saw all these Arabs running around. If anyone can do it, Georgie Boy, I know you can do it.

housefly, today's Isralis are even LESS from the area then you claim the Pals are. Most Jews came from Europe, Russia, Africa, the Americas... Very few of them are real natives to the area. Lips is a good example.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

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

What you failed to acknowledge is the right under international law of those refugees to return to their homes. It is not just a matter of compensation for property taken. I was just reading a title of an article about the concept of being steadfast from an email I received from Kairos Palestine. And when I recently spoke to a young woman in Gaza she spoke of being steadfast too and she told me what they want, to return to their lands. Palestinians believe they will return to their lands some day and time seems to only make the resolve stronger.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Rocco...I'm guessing we both remember 1964:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2]

"It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

Are you saying a majority of Americans would have voted against this Act in 1964?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Sure, they did!

"Take the figure of 675 depopulated villages whose inhabitants comprise 85% of the inhabitants of that part of Palestine that became Israel. It is equivalent to 230 million Americans or 44 millions Britons becoming homeless by the invasion of foreign hostile immigrants.

"Imagine a state being congratulated for its “independence” (from whom I wonder?) 60 years ago on a land it does not own. 93% of Israel’s territory is stolen from its owners. They are watching across the barbed wire or behind the Apartheid Wall.

"... Perhaps the memory of a ten year-old boy recalling Al Nakba may be more meaningful. This is what I told Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, in Paris one evening.

"About a million people became refugees in 1948.

"Their life had suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquility to a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in the middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of help, cries of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows instead of their children, thirsty old men shot in the head if they stopped for water in the forced march, a whole family dismembered to pieces by a bomb dropped from a plane while having supper, survivors of massacres walking about in a daze."

It should happen to you and yours.

http://www.plands.org/speechs/010.html

 

[P F Tinmore]

"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.

Sure, they did!

"Take the figure of 675 depopulated villages whose inhabitants comprise 85% of the inhabitants of that part of Palestine that became Israel. It is equivalent to 230 million Americans or 44 millions Britons becoming homeless by the invasion of foreign hostile immigrants.

"Imagine a state being congratulated for its “independence” (from whom I wonder?) 60 years ago on a land it does not own. 93% of Israel’s territory is stolen from its owners. They are watching across the barbed wire or behind the Apartheid Wall.

"... Perhaps the memory of a ten year-old boy recalling Al Nakba may be more meaningful. This is what I told Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, in Paris one evening.

"About a million people became refugees in 1948.

"Their life had suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquility to a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in the middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of help, cries of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows instead of their children, thirsty old men shot in the head if they stopped for water in the forced march, a whole family dismembered to pieces by a bomb dropped from a plane while having supper, survivors of massacres walking about in a daze."

It should happen to you and yours.

http://www.plands.org/speechs/010.html

"Take the figure of 675 depopulated villages whose inhabitants comprise 85% of the inhabitants of that part of Palestine that became Israel. It is equivalent to 230 million Americans or 44 millions Britons becoming homeless by the invasion of foreign hostile immigrants.

And taken off the voter rolls, BTW. Some democracy.

 

[georgephillip]

Some Jews seem to be experiencing difficulty "choosing" between Democracy and Judaism.

 

[SAYIT]

"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.

Sure, they did!

"Take the figure of 675 depopulated villages whose inhabitants comprise 85% of the inhabitants of that part of Palestine that became Israel. It is equivalent to 230 million Americans or 44 millions Britons becoming homeless by the invasion of foreign hostile immigrants.

"Imagine a state being congratulated for its “independence” (from whom I wonder?) 60 years ago on a land it does not own. 93% of Israel’s territory is stolen from its owners. They are watching across the barbed wire or behind the Apartheid Wall.

"... Perhaps the memory of a ten year-old boy recalling Al Nakba may be more meaningful. This is what I told Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, in Paris one evening.

"About a million people became refugees in 1948.

"Their life had suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquility to a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in the middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of help, cries of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows instead of their children, thirsty old men shot in the head if they stopped for water in the forced march, a whole family dismembered to pieces by a bomb dropped from a plane while having supper, survivors of massacres walking about in a daze."

It should happen to you and yours.

http://www.plands.org/speechs/010.html

You claimed correctly 650,000 Arabs left but your source claims 1 million. Right away you were made aware that your source lies. As for the 650,000 "refugees," they left for their own reasons and were not necessarily "uprooted" by Jews. 160,000 of the 810,000 permanent resident Arabs stayed in Israel and became part of the new nation. You have been made aware of these facts repeatedly yet you, like your source, continue to lie. Is that because the truth just doesn't support your claims?

 

[georgephillip]

No, they did not.

Sure, they did!

"Take the figure of 675 depopulated villages whose inhabitants comprise 85% of the inhabitants of that part of Palestine that became Israel. It is equivalent to 230 million Americans or 44 millions Britons becoming homeless by the invasion of foreign hostile immigrants.

"Imagine a state being congratulated for its “independence” (from whom I wonder?) 60 years ago on a land it does not own. 93% of Israel’s territory is stolen from its owners. They are watching across the barbed wire or behind the Apartheid Wall.

"... Perhaps the memory of a ten year-old boy recalling Al Nakba may be more meaningful. This is what I told Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, in Paris one evening.

"About a million people became refugees in 1948.

"Their life had suddenly been transformed from a state of tranquility to a state of utter destitution: families expelled at gunpoint in the middle of night or in the heat of a summer day, screams of help, cries of pain, children lost, mothers clutching pillows instead of their children, thirsty old men shot in the head if they stopped for water in the forced march, a whole family dismembered to pieces by a bomb dropped from a plane while having supper, survivors of massacres walking about in a daze."

It should happen to you and yours.

http://www.plands.org/speechs/010.html

You claimed correctly 650,000 Arabs left but your source claims 1 million. Right away you were made aware that your source lies. As for the 650,000 "refugees," they left for their own reasons and were not necessarily "uprooted" by Jews. 160,000 of the 810,000 permanent resident Arabs stayed in Israel and became part of the new nation. You have been made aware of these facts repeatedly yet you, like your source, continue to lie. Is that because the truth just doesn't support your claims?

I claimed (correctly) 650,000 Jews uprooted at least an equal number of Arabs from their homes, businesses, and bank accounts in 1948. My source who personally experienced al-Nakba claims as many as a million Arabs fled or were expelled from their property. You on the other hand repeatedly embrace Zionist fictions, fables, and outright lies:

"'Palestine is a land without people', 'the Zionists were in self defense', 'the few won against the many', 'the refugees left on their own accord or by Arab orders', 'Israelis are peace loving and the IDF is merely saving the lives of innocent civilians against the Palestinian terrorists', 'Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East', 'there is no possibility for the refugees to return to Israel', 'Israel is an ethnically and legally Jewish state', 'there is no Palestinian partner for peace', 'Palestinians turned down the Israelis’ generous offer'”.

"Today, a simple surfing on the internet is all that is needed to review the documents, books, papers, photos, and television footage, and to prove that all these statements are entirely false or at least highly exaggerated.

"Those who spread them may admit that they are fully or partially wrong.

"The main point is that they produced the desired effect at the right time and tremendous gains have been obtained from them.

http://www.plands.org/speechs/010.html

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, georgephillip, et al,

REFERENCE:

Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;​

SOURCE: A/RES/194 (III) of 11 December 1948

What you failed to acknowledge is the right under international law of those refugees to return to their homes. It is not just a matter of compensation for property taken. I was just reading a title of an article about the concept of being steadfast from an email I received from Kairos Palestine. And when I recently spoke to a young woman in Gaza she spoke of being steadfast too and she told me what they want, to return to their lands. Palestinians believe they will return to their lands some day and time seems to only make the resolve stronger.

(COMMENT)

There is a difference between,"customary law," - "treaty law," - and - "Statutory Law," that together makeup the bulk of International Law.

The hidden assumption here is that the "right of return" activates upon the cessation of hostilities; and that the "right of return" does not aggravate the "resumption or continuation of hostilities."

There is no "right of return" for refugees that have expressed an intention to conduct anti-government activities; by refugees that refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty; or by refugees that are presumed or affirmed to be enemies of the state. In none of these cases is their customary, statutory, or treaty law that requires a nation to allow violent offenders, anarchist, insurgents, or terrorists from returning to their place of origin once that have withdrawn to other territories.

I don't think there is anyone that really argues the point that refugees have, in the pursuit of peace and prosperity, the right to return to their point of origin after a conflict is concluded. I believe this was established as customary law well before the turn of the 20th Century.

However it doesn't apply to any citizenry or refugees that hold allegiance to an Islamic Resistance Movement or advocates of jihad.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

(PREFACE)

No one argues that the Jewish were the minority and the Arab Palestinian was the majority.

“the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.”
SOURCE: Bill of Rights Institute: Federalist Papers No. 10

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.
• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.
  SOURCE: U.S. GOVERNMENT > Introduction to the U.S. System > Principles of Democracy

Rocco...I'm guessing we both remember 1964:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2]

"It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

Are you saying a majority of Americans would have voted against this Act in 1964?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The fact is, the Congress passed the legislation. But there were large swaths of society that did not agree.

I lived in times when the majority rule and segregation was enforced by law. I remember watching on TV when US Marshals escorted black students to class under the protection of federal troops.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

(PREFACE)

No one argues that the Jewish were the minority and the Arab Palestinian was the majority.

“the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.”
SOURCE: Bill of Rights Institute: Federalist Papers No. 10

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.
• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.
  SOURCE: U.S. GOVERNMENT > Introduction to the U.S. System > Principles of Democracy

Rocco...I'm guessing we both remember 1964:

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States[1] that outlawed major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women.[2]

"It ended unequal application of voter registration requirements and racial segregation in schools, at the workplace and by facilities that served the general public ("public accommodations").

Are you saying a majority of Americans would have voted against this Act in 1964?

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

The fact is, the Congress passed the legislation. But there were large swaths of society that did not agree.

I lived in times when the majority rule and segregation was enforced by law. I remember watching on TV when US Marshals escorted black students to class under the protection of federal troops.

Most Respectfully,
R

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Yes, I don't know if it is true. But then, I get to see this all the time.

v/r
R

 

[skye]

georgephillip, et al,

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

with all respect RoccoR..... you have been sitting on the fence for too long now...who are you with

the Islamic terrorists or Israel ...I still don't get you

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

(COMMENT)

Yes, I don't know if it is true. But then, I get to see this all the time.

v/r
R[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, I don't get to see "this" at all?
When I try to open your image, all I see is a Google error message.
Which is probably a glitch on my end.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

with all respect RoccoR..... you have been sitting on the fence for too long now...who are you with

the Islamic terrorists or Israel ...I still don't get you

False Dichotomy

 

[RoccoR]

Skye, et al,

In this, I made a syntax mistake. Apologies are in order. This is really a quote from George (georgephillip).

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

While it may appear that I sit on the fence, I really don't.

I remember watching the same television news stories, Rocco.
No doubt Jim Crow would've trounced Human Rights at the ballot box in Dixie.
I suspect that would not have been the case nationally in 1964-65.

(COMMENT)
with all respect RoccoR..... you have been sitting on the fence for too long now...who are you with

the Islamic terrorists or Israel ...I still don't get you

(COMMENT)

I am never on the side of "terrorists" (any kind). I'm a retired Counterintelligence Agent. (http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf) Counterintelligence is defined by 50 USC § 401a:

(3) The term “counterintelligence” means information gathered, and activities conducted, to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.
SOURCE: 50 USC § 401a - Definitions | Title 50 - War and National Defense | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

(c) "International terrorism" means activities that -

(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended -

(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and​

(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.​

(d) "Sabotage" means activities that involve a violation of chapter 105 of title 18, or that would involve such a violation if committed against the United States.
SOURCE: 50 U.S.C. § 1801 : US Code - Section 1801: Definitions

My allegiance is to the United States; not Israel. Israel is a non-NATO major ally.

(q) "Major non-NATO ally" means a country which is designated in accordance with section 2321k of this title as a major non-NATO ally for purposes of this chapter and the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.).
SOURCE: 22 U.S.C. § 2403 : US Code - Section 2403: Definitions

Palestinians and Islamic Terrorist, while often viewed in a synonymous way, are not actually one and the same. This is guilt by association and tacit support by the indigenous populace that call themselves Palestinian. Some Palestinians are Islamic Terrorists; and some Islamic Terrorists are Palestinians.

Israel operates in its own best interest, as they interpret those interests to be; just as the United States does. When those interests align, then we are allied in a common cause. When they don't align, then I follow the Constitution (the universal constant) and the "Rule of Law."

When Israel steps outside the accepted lines of the "Rule of Law," then I support the "Rule of Law" over and above the interests of Israel. I don't support Israel, in a "right or wrong" condition. Just as I don't oppose the Palestinian whether they are "right or wrong." The "Rule of Law" takes precedence in both cases.

THUS: While it may appear to those that follow a "support them (either side) - a right or wrong" policy, it is not when you stand on the side of the "Rule of Law" and the concept of "due process."

This often puts me at odds with both sides of the equation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...did you support the US government's decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip,

This is a very tough question.

Rocco...did you support the US government's decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

(COMMENT)

Did I believe that it was a right decision? No

Did I support the government? Yes I served in Iraq a total of 5 years.

v/r
R

 

[ima]

georgephillip,

This is a very tough question.

Rocco...did you support the US government's decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

(COMMENT)

Did I believe that it was a right decision? No

Did I support the government? Yes I served in Iraq a total of 5 years.

v/r
R

How many of the iraqis that you shot were innocent?