What do normal people - think of Israel?

[cnm]

What would you call qassams that were loaded with shrapnel coated in chemical and/or biological agents then ?

I think without a cite I'd call them unsubstantiated scare mongering propaganda spread by a useful idiot.

 

[gtopa1]

You are WRONG!! Israel has been mandated by the UN and is as legitimate a country as any. That is not the problem except for genocidal low lifes.

I'm not talking about Israel proper. They were not mandated by the UN in the West Bank, Gaza strip, Golan Heights or East Jerusalem. Those areas, the Israeli's took by force, which has been outlawed since the end of WWII. And the only ones committing genocide these days, are the Israeli's.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181

Requests that

1. The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
2. The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;
3. The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;
4. The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;

Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;

Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and

Authorizes the Secretary-General to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the Commission referred to in Part 1, Section B, Paragraph I below, on such basis and in such form as he may determine most appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the Commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Commission by the General Assembly.*

You know this already; nothing new here. so why the genocidal murderous intent?? You must really HATE those Israeli Arabs!!!

Greg

181 is a worthless, non-binding resolution, that became null and void once the UNSC refused to vote on it. It has no legal authority whatsoever. It's also a bullshit document that gave 70% of the land, to 30% of the population.

So when Egypt took gaza and Jordan took the west bank by force why wasn't that illegal

It is interesting that the enlightened useful idiots use UN "stuff" when it suits them but don't see anything binding in the nations Assembled recognising the state of Israel. Do these same people say that Kuwait had no right to exist? They poorly disguise their anti-Semetism, including Israeli Arabs.

Greg

That's a fair point, NO country has a "right to exist" it's only the Zionists that keep banging on about that. The United Kingdom's "right to exist" applies so long as her neighbours accept the fact of her existance and the people express their will to that effect, as demonstrated recently in the Scottish independance referendum.

So no country has a right to exist but the UK has as long as its neighbours agree and the People express their will to that effect? have you still got that cake you ate???

Looking at both 181 and 242 then clearly the World neighbours have given Israel the right to exist which no nation has but the UK has because the neighbours say so and the people will it............taking in your account that no country has the right to exist but the UK has.

Sorry old bean your logic just doesn't quite get there. However, please note that the pals nearest neighbour offered them a state THREE TIMES but they refused it. Arafat even murdered those pro the sadat suggestion.....the asshole!!!

In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details:

1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem.

Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return."

Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper:

From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.

On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.

One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years...

And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]

He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)

And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down:

In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.

Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009)

Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:

2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive.
Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada).

Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:

... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)

According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:

Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat:

3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.

The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.

The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.

Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.

Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.​

Arafat should have been condemned for crimes against humanity!! Carter made the call and those who did come forward got the bullet in the head treatment. Wonderful leader was Arafat, .....not!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Seems news travels SLOWLY to the Shaky Isle

The Aksa Martyrs Brigades announced on Sunday that its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah Party, said the weapons were the result of a three-year effort.

Al-Aksa claims chemical capabilities - Democratic Underground

Greg

 

[Mindful]

The United Kingdom's "right to exist" applies so long as her neighbours accept the fact of her existance and the people express their will to that effect, as demonstrated recently in the Scottish independence.

Which neighbours?​

 

[Billo_Really]

So when Egypt took gaza and Jordan took the west bank by force why wasn't that illegal

Good question. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you, since I have not researched that topic. When I do, I'll give you an answer at that time.

 

[Billo_Really]

So you are saying that Palestine has no right to exist??

I disagree. The UN has given them the Right to a homeland; one which lives in peace with its neighbours and is based on Democratic Principles. (181). So why didn't they?

Greg

States don't have rights; people do.

181 tried to give 70% of the land, to 30% of the population, what person in their right mind would agree to that?

 

[docmauser1]

The ten-year-old stale moldy "news". [cue yawn]

News like that is indeed worth deflecting. I mean, what would normal people think?

Normal people would yawn, of course.

 

[Billo_Really]

It is interesting that the enlightened useful idiots use UN "stuff" when it suits them but don't see anything binding in the nations Assembled recognising the state of Israel.

You should look in the mirror on that one, you fuckin' hypocrite! I personally prefer Assembly resolutions over SC ones, because the former is closer to actual world opinion, the latter is more of a political body that is handcuffed by the politics of the Big 5.

With that being said, normal people would know, only UNSC resolutions are binding.

Do these same people say that Kuwait had no right to exist?

States don't have rights; people do.

They poorly disguise their anti-Semetism, including Israeli Arabs.

Greg

IHL has nothing to do with Judaism. Why do you insist on pushing that bullshit talking point?

 

[docmauser1]

You misunderstand. Normal people check to see whether they still have their documents after Israel has visited them.

What mental asylum are we talking about?

 

[docmauser1]

That's a fair point, NO country has a "right to exist" it's only the Zionists that keep banging on about that.

So, if palistan is gone tomorrow, it's no big deal. Palistanians should've been resettled in their arab homelands yesterday, anyway, shouldn't they?

 

[Mindful]

You misunderstand. Normal people check to see whether they still have their documents after Israel has visited them.

What mental asylum are we talking about?

The one for the criminally insane.

 

[Billo_Really]

Looking at both 181 and 242 then clearly the World neighbours have given Israel the right to exist...

242 tells Israel to get the **** off land that isn't their's. And that "IS" binding!

Oh, I almost forgot, "normal people" asked me to tell you to shove that 181 document up your ass, it's obvious you've eaten way too much bran.

Sorry old bean your logic just doesn't quite get there. However, please note that the pals nearest neighbour offered them a state THREE TIMES but they refused it. Arafat even murdered those pro the sadat suggestion.....the asshole!!!

I wouldn't go there when your own psycho settlers assassinated Rabin.

 

[Billo_Really]

I didn't attempt to change the subject (was there one?) to Austria.

Then explain when I said -

for the world community to allow Israel to keep the land they presently occupy, would be the same as allowing Hitler to annex Poland, -​

you came back with some comment about Austria?

 

[docmauser1]

So when Egypt took gaza and Jordan took the west bank by force why wasn't that illegal

Good question. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you, since I have not researched that topic. When I do, I'll give you an answer at that time.

That is, when fresh drivel becomes available, of course.

 

[gtopa1]

I didn't attempt to change the subject (was there one?) to Austria.

Then explain when I said -

for the world community to allow Israel to keep the land they presently occupy, would be the same as allowing Hitler to annex Poland, -​

you came back with some comment about Austria?

ffs recall your history and I return your head to your ascending colon with interest!!

In October 1939, Germany directly annexed those former Polish territories along German's eastern border: West Prussia, Poznan, Upper Silesia, and the former Free City of Danzig. The remainder of German-occupied Poland (including the cities of Warsaw, Krakow, Radom, and Lublin) was organized as the so-called Generalgouvernement (General Government) under a civilian governor general, the Nazi party lawyer Hans Frank.

idiot!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Looking at both 181 and 242 then clearly the World neighbours have given Israel the right to exist...

242 tells Israel to get the **** off land that isn't their's. And that "IS" binding!

Oh, I almost forgot, "normal people" asked me to tell you to shove that 181 document up your ass, it's obvious you've eaten way too much bran.

Sorry old bean your logic just doesn't quite get there. However, please note that the pals nearest neighbour offered them a state THREE TIMES but they refused it. Arafat even murdered those pro the Sadat suggestion.....the asshole!!!

I wouldn't go there when your own psycho settlers assassinated Rabin.

No. You are quite WRONG!! I have given you a correct version by one of those who framed it. That you still chant a diatribe of dung is your own affair. If you can't get it right then perhaps you should refrain from writing crap!!

Greg

 

[docmauser1]

181 tried to give 70% of the land, to 30% of the population, what person in their right mind would agree to that?

Nah, the resolution 181 didn't concern Jordan, that got 70% for "30%" (or less) of the bedouin foreigners from the Gulf peninsula. hehe
But, altogether that 181 tried to give 70% of the land, to 30% of the population, what person in their right mind would agree to that? was a nice drivel. Who made it up, bth.?

 

[docmauser1]

You should look in the mirror on that one, you fuckin' hypocrite! I personally prefer Assembly resolutions over SC ones, because the former is closer to actual world opinion, the latter is more of a political body that is handcuffed by the politics of the Big 5.

Indeed, the united allah-akbar block there is making mucho noises.

With that being said, normal people would know, only UNSC resolutions are binding.

Commendable, indeed!

 

[docmauser1]

242 tells Israel to get the **** off land that isn't their's. And that "IS" binding!

Funny, can anyone find me a word "palestinian" there? hehe

 

[Mindful]

I didn't attempt to change the subject (was there one?) to Austria.

Then explain when I said -

for the world community to allow Israel to keep the land they presently occupy, would be the same as allowing Hitler to annex Poland, -​

you came back with some comment about Austria?

Some comment about Austria:

From Spiegel.

"The reunification of Austria with the German Reich,” as Hitler formulated it for a law.

In Austria, it was the position of the clergy which proved decisive: In a statement on March 18, Austrian bishops spoke out decidedly in favor of unification. The religious elite calculated that, by supporting the new regime, they would be able to preserve their far-reaching privileges. Leading politicians also agreed to the “Anschluss” (Annexation) without hesitation. Former Social Democratic Chancellor Karl Renner, for example, underscored his clear “yes” in a newspaper interview.
'One People, One Empire, One Leader'"

Slightly different in nuance to invasion and occupation. (Think Poland)