What do normal people - think of Israel?

[gtopa1]

Not in my experience

Oh. It has been ours.

Disingenuous to truncate the post you are replying to, so once again it is many peoples experience that the muslims will steal what is yours and then claim that they have owned it for 2,000 years. Just look at Israel that the arab muslims have not owned since 1099, a period of 1015 years.

It is interesting that Arabs have become self identified with Ottomans. lol

Greg

 

[Phoenall]

In actual fact the UN put Israel's right to exist as THE Jewish state into customary International law.

Do you think you might be able to provide a cite of that? I don't believe I've seen that passage.

A RES 273 III of 11 May 1949

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanationsmade by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations

 

[gtopa1]

I have often wondered what one called a gathering of anti-Israeli activists?? Several possibles come to mind.

Greg

 

[Mindful]

I have often wondered what one called a gathering of anti-Israeli activists?? Several possibles come to mind.

Greg

A kindle of kittens?

 

[Hossfly]

I have often wondered what one called a gathering of anti-Israeli activists?? Several possibles come to mind.

Greg

That is obvious: Liars Club meeting.

 

[Mindful]

I have often wondered what one called a gathering of anti-Israeli activists?? Several possibles come to mind.

Greg

That is obvious: Liars Club meeting.

What would you call their agenda? Because they all say the same thing; like it's a script. And have the tendency to freak out.

 

[Hossfly]

I have often wondered what one called a gathering of anti-Israeli activists?? Several possibles come to mind.

Greg

That is obvious: Liars Club meeting.

What would you call their agenda? Because they all say the same thing; like it's a script. And have the tendency to freak out.

"Pacifying the Muslim world and the Infidels in it."

 

[Billo_Really]

What actions do you have in mind?

War crimes. Deliberately killing innocent civilians. Collective punishment. Stuff like that.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

 

[Hossfly]

What actions do you have in mind?

War crimes. Deliberately killing innocent civilians. Collective punishment. Stuff like that.

Rotsa ruck, Bobo.

 

[Hossfly]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

 

[theliq]

Ask the slag what she called this video in another thread and why she gave such vocal support to the ex BNP nazi nick griffin

Your unsubstantiated claims are hardly evidence which would enable an informed opinion of Mindful but judging just from the posts in this thread, it's not she who is the Nazi slag but rather you, Fraud.
You may find it interesting to know that the Nazis were not right wing but rather socialists as in "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party."

Say,Goodaye...Well maybe the Nazis were not in Name but they were in Nature........steve

 

[SAYIT]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

You understood Reh's response? Could you translate it to English? What is "Palestinian Country?

 

[SAYIT]

Ask the slag what she called this video in another thread and why she gave such vocal support to the ex BNP nazi nick griffin

Your unsubstantiated claims are hardly evidence which would enable an informed opinion of Mindful but judging just from the posts in this thread, it's not she who is the Nazi slag but rather you, Fraud.
You may find it interesting to know that the Nazis were not right wing but rather socialists as in "National SOCIALIST German Workers' Party."

Say,Goodaye...Well maybe the Nazis were not in Name but they were in Nature........steve

Yeah, they are facists by nature but Socialists at their core. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Hossfly]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

You understood Reh's response? Could you translate it to English? What is "Palestinian Country?

Don't rightly know. I was questioning the reference to the "deal."

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

As some one said before to me, you will get the answer.

 

[Hossfly]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

As some one said before to me, you will get the answer.

O.K. I'll take door number 1.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

You understood Reh's response? Could you translate it to English? What is "Palestinian Country?

Palestinian country is consist on Jordan, Lebanon and israel.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

As some one said before to me, you will get the answer.

O.K. I'll take door number 1.

GOOD!

 

[SAYIT]

Rehmani, gtopa1, Billo_Really, et al,

I'm getting confused as to what the issue is here.

All the powers-that-be understand the legitimacy of Resolution 181(II), and the historical intent. We also know that there were powerful Arab forces that attempted to overturn the intent of Resolution 181(II) by force. But that was more than half a century ago. Certainly the UN, as a body, recognizes the important historical significants to the resolution; it is still cited as a precedence in matter on the "Question of Palestine." While some still argue the significants, the UN then and the UN now still hold that it is the concept (Two-State Solution) in play.

It is doubtful, given the political and uncooperative nature of the Palestinians, that any UN Coalition is going to attempt to correct the unintentional consequences that have arose since that time. It is a waste of time, money and effort. It has not been the case that any of the Arab States formerly under Mandate, did not ultimately bite the hand that feed them. It is unlikely that any of the original Allied Powers, or any of todays leading Powers, are going to make any effort to mediate an agreement between the parties in conflict.

At the end of the day, the solution rests with the conflict parties coning to an agree by treaty. A treaty can clean the slate. Both Egypt and Jordan have come to settlement. If the other parties want a new understanding, then they have to make the same commitment and put forth the same level of effort as Egypt and Jordan. Otherwise, there really will be no real movement forward.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then Israel should accept the deal from Arab League and leave the Palestinian Country, Israel occupied after 1967 and provide the legal status to Palestine as a country, so world or Palestine and Israel can use UN plat form to deal their issues by themselves.

Why?

You understood Reh's response? Could you translate it to English? What is "Palestinian Country?

Palestinian country is consist on Jordan, Lebanon and israel.

No, it's not nor was it ever.