The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Coyote]

Have you even read what I posted? If you had, you wouldn't need to ask those questions.

Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?

Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.



Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV

Again. If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions. I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.

And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.

First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home

Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations: First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so. The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes I have and you have never actually addressed them The arab muslims that left in 1947-1948 have they still got the right to claim first nations status ?

Try as I might I cant find any international law that introduces right of return, because the muslims block it when it is raised as they dont want non muslims allowed to enter mecca.



Do you even bother to read more than just two links, and then only the ones that support your POV

Again. If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions. I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.

And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.

First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home

Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations: First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so. The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?

 

[Challenger]

Maybe because it's in the Israel/Palestine forum

Where's the Pakistan/India forum? Cambodia/Thailand forum?

Oh yeah, no Jews there.

By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there are Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?

So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.

We understand you now.

Doubt it.

It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that. Understand me now?

As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours. You're a fkn hypocrite.

Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.

 

[Challenger]

The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.

The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews.

How do you know? Have you asked them?

 

[Coyote]

Again. If you read what I posted you would not be asking these questions. I believe I've made my opinions on "right of return" and "first nations status" sufficiently clear and I see no reason to keep repeating myself.

And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.

First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home

Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations: First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so. The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?

This has nothing to do with borders.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Where's the Pakistan/India forum? Cambodia/Thailand forum?

Oh yeah, no Jews there.

By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there are Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?

So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.

We understand you now.

Doubt it.

It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that. Understand me now?

As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours. You're a fkn hypocrite.

Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.

From my Cherokee wife. Give it back.

 

[Phoenall]

The world would be boring if we all agreed, but look up the definitions of the words "majority" and "extremist", might help you understand my post.

The assholes outside Israel proper, especially in Gaza, have no intention of living peacefully with any Jews.

How do you know? Have you asked them?

YES and the replied with their charter.................

 

[Phoenall]

And you ignore the facts and reality that there is no legal right of return, it is just a concept that the arab muslims use to delegitamise Israel as the Jews national home. They take a UN resolution and try to turn it into an international law, and when they fail they wait a while and start again. This is in the hope that some semi literate people will believe their LIES and claim that the right of return is a legal requirement. Time for the UN, ICC and ICJ to issue a statement to the effect that there is no legal right of return for all people, just for those who's nations have put it into domestic law.

First nations staus can only be granted to those people with ties to the lands going back many years, it cant be granted to those people that migrated illegally and set up home

Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations: First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so. The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?

This has nothing to do with borders.

Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

 

[Coyote]

Man, you really can't read.

I'm ignoring nothing.

First Nations: First Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither Jews nor Palestinians qualify as "First Nations" - ties to land alone do not make them so. The only reason to attempt to stretch the definition to fit is in order to claim special rights for one and desenfranchise the other.

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?

This has nothing to do with borders.

Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

 

[Shusha]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

 

[Phoenall]

Since when has canada been in the M.E. ?

Just asking

Canada defined the First Nations.

For Canada only, or are you saying that you will accept Iran defining your state borders ?

This has nothing to do with borders.

So you would say that because borders, as in extent of authority, do not come into it when the P.A.declare that they are first nations people of the Americas. Where does your extent of authority start and end if borders dont come into it ?





Yes it has as the borders you set should be inviolate. Another nation should not be allowed to define who can live on your land. In this case Canada, who should not be defining who is first nations for the USA, Mexico, Brazil, Australia etc.

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

 

[Phoenall]

I have no idea what you are talking about Phoenal. FIRST NATIONS is a term that applies only to Canadian indiginous peoples, and has by extension applied to other AMERICAN indiginous people. BORDERS do not enter in to it, CULTURE does. The purpose of the identification is to preserve their culture from being absorbed by the dominant cultures. It's a term that applies to native American peoples.

It is a term which can most certainly be extended (and should be) to apply to other cultures. There is no reason to have it apply only to the Americas, other than silly word games and missing the meat of the argument.

Exactly where does the authority start and end for declaring this group are first nations while this group aren't. Who issues the authority to the decision makers if not themselves ?

 

[Mindful]

The creation of countries:

Mark Twain -- Samuel Clemens -- took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We are talking about Israel now. He said: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there. Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British, made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea in 1913. The Palestinian Royal Commission said:

"The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as "a hopeless, dreary place." In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920? Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941. The borders of Jordan were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the Turks.

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Israel's Right to the Land

 

[Shusha]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

 

[Mindful]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.

 

[Shusha]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.

The Syrians are a "real" people. The Iraqis are a "real" people. The Jordanians are a "real" people. The Lebanese are a "real" people. The Palestinians are a "real" people.

The Jews aren't.

 

[Mindful]

Might be worth having an in depth study of Arabs under Ottoman rule.

 

[Challenger]

By George I think he's got it....oh, but wait, there are Jewish people in India and Cambodia..and Thailand. Never mind, it's probably because those Jewish people aren't Zionists, didn't try to colonise those countries, disposess and oppress the natives, that there's no ongoing conflict between European settlers and native populations in those countries, so no point in having forums about them, is there?

So it's OK when Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims take land, but the second the United Nations hands a Jew a house, you shit a brick.

We understand you now.

Doubt it.

It's not OK with me when anyone takes another's land/country. But there are only 24 hours in a day and I can't spend all my time posting on every injustice. I see the conflict between native and Zionist colonist as the most obscene and unjust of them all, so I chose to post about it. Once this conflict is resolved, I'll go on to the next one, and the one after that. Understand me now?

As you sit on land stolen and claim it to be yours. You're a fkn hypocrite.

Who'd I steal the land where my house stands from? I've met the farmer who sold the land originally to the builder and he's happy. Perhaps you mean the Anglo-Saxons who lost it to the Danes, or the Danes who lost it to the Normans, or do you want to go back to the Romano-British or the Romans (who abandoned it anyway) or the Celts before them? Explain how I'm being hypocritical.

From my Cherokee wife. Give it back.

Seems your geography is as good as your comprehension skills.

 

[Challenger]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.

The Syrians are a "real" people. The Iraqis are a "real" people. The Jordanians are a "real" people. The Lebanese are a "real" people. The Palestinians are a "real" people.

The Jews aren't.

Finally, the penny drops.

 

[Mindful]

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

Historically, Israel RE-GAINED the national self-determination of its people in 1948.

What is interesting is the"creation" of those other countries. Yet no discussion over their right to exist.

The Syrians are a "real" people. The Iraqis are a "real" people. The Jordanians are a "real" people. The Lebanese are a "real" people. The Palestinians are a "real" people.

The Jews aren't.

Finally, the penny drops.

Idiot!