Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,515
- 2,250
The only history we are picking up is your history of mental illness.
Who Are The Palestinains?
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
The only history we are picking up is your history of mental illness.
- Thread starter
- #1,482
Good point Tinmore. Finally you are making some sense. How can those silly Zionists claim that Palestine did not exist, when the indigenous Palestinians WERE JEWS?
The issues that you debate don't change.
Because it came four months after the Israeli one, which staked-out a claim to a piece of Old Palestine.
Had the Palestinians had the brains to declare on the same day the Israelis did (the day that the Mandate ended), their position would have been stronger.
Think of it as a Gold Rush.
You have 100 acres of land on which gold is believed to exist in large quantity.
You have two gold prospectors competing.
Somebody suggests that they divide it up.
Prospector A says "OK", and files a claim for his half.
Prospector B says "No, I want the whole thing", and doesn't bother to file.
A and B start to feuding, and B gets the worst of it, and loses some of his half in the process.
Four months later, B goes to the claims office, and tries to file a claim for the whole thing.
B gets laughed out of the claims office.
When the outside world gets wind of it, most of the Territory is laughing at B, as well.
As more time passes, and A continues to encroach on troublesome B, and B continues to start fresh firefights, B continues to get the worst of it, time after time after time.
B never learns.
Worse, B continues to press his claim for his old half, and wants a piece of A's original turf, as well - actually, B continues to insist that it's still all his, even though the world has long-since abandoned any pretense that B's claim to take it all is valid or operative.
B is, by then, not only viewed as a laughing-stock, but as the village idiot.
And it all started with B not having the brains to file his claim the same day that A did, way-back-when.
That's why I say that the September 1948 declaration was late.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,485
Common sense and the evidence that shows Palestine did not have any autonomy until 1988. Unless you can produce the treaties signed by the Palestinian leaders that set the nations International borders in place. You need to understand that as far as legalese is concerned it is easier to put Palestine than to put the mandated lands of Palestine. Just as you also need to understand that the Jews had the same rights to self determination and the right to a homeland as the arab muslims did. Your constant posting of the Jews having no rights to a homeland and no right to defend it from attack show that you are only concerned with arab muslim "rights" that don't even exist.
Now prove conclusively that Palestine as a sovereign nation existed before August 1988 by producing the treaties and legal documents signed by and on behalf of the Palestinian people. If these are not forthcoming then you can take it as read that you are living a lie.
Because the Jews beat the muslims to it and had declared on the land destined as Israel. This meant the muslims could not declare on land already under new ownership, it was not in the UN partition plan of 1947. It also deprived the Jews and Christians of Palestine of their rights to self determination and a homeland making the muslims in breach of UN res 181 which by declaring meant they agreed with it.
You fail to truth and reality every time you bring up the same false premise spread by the ISLAMONAZIS
Don't you then how about if the Jews declared independence in Mecca and made it an arab free nation. Now why would they be too late to do this ?
He has been brainwashed into believing that Israel does not exist because some Palestinian has re-written the treaties and resolutions to show that the UN and LoN did not have the authority to divide up Palestine, even though they had already done so and created Jordan, Syria and Iraq.
So you agree that the Jews had no rights to self determination as put forward by the muslims when they declared independence 4 months after Israel's had been accepted. That is the whole point of your posts to remove the rights of the Jews to self determination and the right to a homeland.
PURE ANTI SEMITIC NAZI JEW HATRED
Hardly what is changing is the reality of what you think and believe. Now we are seeing that you don't want the Jews to have the same rights as everyone else to self determination and a homeland.
Care to explain why this is ? And don't say it isn't so as you have implied this in this thread
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
You really like getting *****-slapped, don't you, gumby?
Here's a few more international maritime laws proving you're full of shit!
Let's start with freedom to navigate...
BTW, trying to say a vessel carrying humanitarian aid is drug smuggling, is like saying Mother Theresa was a whore!
You're pretty fucked in the head!
Back to the laws...
...this one proves Israel had no right to stop that ship.
So no, dumbass, you cannot stop a ship in international waters.
This last law, is in response to your "...what if Israel suspects..." line,
...which means, fuckhead, if there is any criminal activity on board a ship, it is up to the nation whose flag the ship is sailing under, to investigate and prosecute those involved.
I notice you don't provide links to back up your claims, you just shoot your ******* mouth off until the cows come home.
Well one thing is for certain you aint man enough to do it, or intelligent enough either.
1) How about the rest of that clause that spells it out.................The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes................ On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.........
2) You trying to make false claims of what I said is about par for the course whee you are being shown to be an illiterate. You forgot that the aid was out of date and unfit for human use and was just an excuse, maybe Israel should have allow3ed the medical supplies to be used and kill a few thousand Palestinians.
3) You can if the vessel is suspected of Piracy ( which this one ended up doing ) or smuggling.
4) I don't need to provide links when you have already provided them and ignored the parts that don't go along with your POV
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,389
- 4,876
- 1,815
I didn't say that and that is not what happened.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,389
- 4,876
- 1,815
That is not true.
There was a proposed land to be transferred to Israel in resolution 181 but resolution 181 didn't happen. No land was transferred to Israel.
It is what happened and you keep posting this as evidence of the Palestinians declaration of intent. You know as well as everyone else that had the Palestinians won in 1948 the Jews would have been massacred. You don't need to say it as you imply this in all your posts. The fact remains that the Jews had as much right to self determination as the arab muslims did, and they declared on the small portion of land given to them by the lands LEGAL OWNERS.
No w produce your evidence of treaties signed by the Palestinians prior to August 1988 that set in stone their borders mutually agreed with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabis
See you are attempting to remove the Jews rights to self determination by telling lies. The land was transferred to the Jews under 181 as soon as they deposited their declaration with the UN. You can call up as many obscure ISLAMONAZI links as you like the UN and ICJ supersedes them all.
The Resolution as a legal basis for Palestinian statehood[edit]
In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence relying on Resolution 181, arguing that the resolution continues to provide international legitimacy for the right of the Palestinian people to sovereignty and national independence.[107] A number of scholars have written in support of this view.[108][109][110]
A General Assembly request for an advisory opinion, Resolution ES-10/14 (2004), specifically cited resolution 181(II) as a "relevant resolution", and asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) what are the legal consequences of the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Judge Abdul Koroma explained the majority opinion: "The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed."[111] In response, Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all
United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Indeed.
They took it.
The Jews knew that 181 was not going to materialize.
So they carved-off their slice of Old Palestine, as if the land-parceling aspects of 181 were operative.
And declared it to be a State.
And held it against all comers.
Cherry-picking what they wanted from UN 181, and leaving the rest in the dustbin of history.
Eventually, the world recognized the existence of Israel, conceding the fait accompli.
Land was not transferred.
Land was divided-up.
That division was made operative and real by force of arms.
Superceding any former legal status to the contrary.
The Muslims tried to change that.
The Muslims failed.
As usual.
Next slide, please.
Last edited:
Which will win out - interests or values?...
Egypt's anointing of Sisi will lay bare west's battle between interest and values
Monday 26 May 2014 ~ Pragmatic engagement, not principles, likely to be the order of the day in dealings with Cairo for foreseeable future
Western governments will have to come up with some tortuous language when Abdel Fatah al-Sisi becomes Egypt's president. No one doubts that the former field marshal will win this week's election by a handsome margin, thanks to a combination of genuine support, boycotts by Islamists who have been banned and persecuted, and the absence of credible rivals. Victory is no less assured than it is for Bashar al-Assad, facing his date with Syria's destiny next month – though that exercise has been widely condemned as a parody of democracy. Washington, London and Brussels are already finalising carefully-crafted statements about the will of the Egyptian people and pressing forward with the promised "democratic transition". There will be euphemistic calls for "inclusiveness" and widening the country's "political space". There may even be some critical words about justice and human rights. But there will be congratulations for Egypt's new strongman.
Behind these circumlocutions and evasions lie the unmistakable reality that this republican coronation puts an end to the hopes that were generated by the biggest upheaval of the Arab spring. Sisi is able to claim the mantle of Gamal Abdel-Nasser and other soldiers-turned-presidents because he and his fellow generals removed the democratically-elected Mohamed Morsi last summer in a move that was undoubtedly popular but was still a coup by any definition. The US never used that C-word, because under congressional rules it would have meant an automatic cut-off of aid. Britain fretted about the dangers of military "intervention" and hoped for better times. For a few weeks there was a slight chill in relations with Cairo. EU aid and UK arms export licences were suspended. US military aid was frozen, though some sales resumed when Russia stepped in to fill the gap in the market.
Abdel Fatah al-Sisi at a Cairo polling station to cast his vote in the Egyptian presidential election.
Ambassadors who had embraced the Muslim Brotherhood uncritically during Morsi's unhappy year in office – to the fury of Egyptians who loathed him – accepted that things had changed overnight. Business as usual did include condemnation of repression under the military – 1,000 people killed and many thousands imprisoned could hardly be ignored. The outlawing of the Brotherhood, mass trials and death sentences and a media crackdown have drawn fire too. Still, the announcement of a UK investigation into the Brotherhood and Tony Blair's warm endorsement of Sisi sent very different messages about Egypt's lurch back to pre-2011 authoritarianism. In private, western government ministers and officials admit that Sisi's "road-map" cannot include the aspirations that accompanied the fall of Hosni Mubarak. But in the battle between interests and values, interests win hands down: these include fighting jihadis in Sinai, keeping the peace with Israel, and economics. The UK is Egypt's biggest source of foreign direct investment. Huge Egyptian debts to British companies are unlikely to be paid if London is at loggerheads with Cairo for the foreseeable future. The US defence industry needs pragmatic engagement, not principles. Counter-terrorism may turn out be Sisi's trump card – just as it was for Mubarak.
More Egypt's anointing of Sisi will lay bare west's battle between interest and values | World news | theguardian.com
See also:
Muslim Sisterhood emerges in Egypt...
Massacre of Muslim Brotherhood enables Sister to emerge from shadows
Monday 26 May 2014 - Female activists hope newfound freedom to speak out is here to stay, with many demanding bigger long-term role in wider group
On the campaign trail, Egypt's next president, Abdel-Fatah al-Sisi, has aimed much of his attention at women. They are "the calm, soft and rational voice in the house", he said in one interview. "I'm asking you now to preserve our bigger house: Egypt." On Monday, women at several polling stations in north Cairo appeared to respond to his call, vastly outnumbering male voters. But one women's group stayed home – the female wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, which boycotted the election. If the last 11 months have been brutal for the Brotherhood, they have also been transformative for the women who have long operated in its shadow: the Muslim Sisterhood.
Egyptians wait in line in Cairo to vote in Monday's presidential election. Female voters vastly outnumbered male voters at several polling stations.
Not long ago, this was a group that rarely protested on its own and was usually led by men. Now some of its members gather almost daily inside university campuses in protests co-ordinated and attended exclusively by women – and sometimes they have gathered in the streets. When 14 members of the Sisterhood were initially sentenced to 11 years in prison [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/07/egypt-frees-21-female-protesters] for protesting last winter, it was not just the severity of the jail terms that raised eyebrows: it was that they were in the streets at all. "The girls can speak their thoughts now, and they can have their own demonstrations," says one young member, Fatima. "And that never happened before."
This has led some to demand a bigger long-term role within the wider Muslim Brotherhood group. "It can't be like before, when we were blindly loyal," says Fatima. "We are getting detained, we're getting attacked in the streets – so we must have some say." Founded in the 1930s, less than a decade after the Brotherhood, the Sisterhood previously focused on social work. Members of the Brotherhood have often expressed extremely regressive ideas about women's role in society. Sisterhood members have never been allowed to join the Brotherhood's leadership board, and cannot vote on internal decisions. Now its youngest members increasingly say they should be given both rights. "We were used to playing a secondary role," says Sarah Kamal, a designer in her 20s, and a Muslim Sister. "Both men and women were used to women playing a secondary role. But that's changing for sure."
MORE
You're so full of shit. You keep repeating this even though you know it's a lie.
Land transfer had nothing to do with it. You made that up!
Land transfer is a real estate issue.
Both Israel AND The Palestinians used resolution 181 as a basis for their declaration of independence.
YOU ARE A LIAR !
You know how many times Rocco and I have shown Tinmore that both Israel and the Palestinians used 181 for their declaration of independence??
Yet he keeps denying it.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Nothing ever really was going to get better until that regime went away," - BIll Maher- Started by Seymour Flops
- Replies: 1
-
Biden DOJ Refused to Prosecute Man Who Later Sold Gun to Old Dominion Shooter- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 13
-
California launches probe after video shows petition gatherers offering money for signatures
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
NYC’s Credit Rating Goes From Positive to Negative Under Mamdani- Started by Captain Creeper
- Replies: 3
-
