Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[montelatici]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

 

[montelatici]

The convicted terrorist Menachem Begin and other Zionist murderers have streets, schools and other sites named after them. Why are you complaining?

 

[Hollie]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

I see you're retreating from your silly "invasion" slogans, at least temporarily. Your simple minded reiteration of such silly slogans only serves to weaken your otherwise, ill considered and inarticulate sentence structuring around islamist propaganda.

 

[Hollie]

The convicted terrorist Menachem Begin and other Zionist murderers have streets, schools and other sites named after them. Why are you complaining?

View attachment 95352

I just find it remarkable that you glorify Islamic terrorists.

 

[montelatici]

All terrorists are evil, of whatever religion.

I just find it remarkable that you glorify Jewish terrorists.

 

[Hollie]

All terrorists are evil, of whatever religion.

I just find it remarkable that you glorify Jewish terrorists.

I wasn't aware I did that. Did that vision come to you during one of your comatose events?

 

[montelatici]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

I see you're retreating from your silly "invasion" slogans, at least temporarily. Your simple minded reiteration of such silly slogans only serves to weaken your otherwise, ill considered and inarticulate sentence structuring around islamist propaganda.

Again, let's set aside your responses that are now taking the tack of repeating what I write. Very childish, by the way.

Do you see other post-invasion solutions beyond ethnic cleansing, genocide or integration of the native people? If you don't have an answer, there is no need to respond.

 

[Hollie]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

I see you're retreating from your silly "invasion" slogans, at least temporarily. Your simple minded reiteration of such silly slogans only serves to weaken your otherwise, ill considered and inarticulate sentence structuring around islamist propaganda.

Again, let's set aside your responses that are now taking the tack of repeating what I write. Very childish, by the way.

Do you see other post-invasion solutions beyond ethnic cleansing, genocide or integration of the native people? If you don't have an answer, there is no need to respond.

Well actually, you're sidestepping around questions and comments you are unable to address and that leaves you with no options but to parrot my earlier posts. It's in poor form to dance around that which you're too befuddled to address.

 

[Phoenall]

Well, fantasists such as you with little education, as can be discerned by your inarticulate writing style, can never accept the facts or simple definitions. That is why it is clear that you are suffering under a severe case of cognizant dissonance. In other words, you are delusional for not accepting the fact that people from one place going to another place with the intent to subjugate the native people and take over the levers of power, is an invasion. Full stop.

In any case, we are not discussing the invasion and subjugation of the native people here, we are discussing the post-invasion/colonization situation and the possible solutions.

I stated that:

"Given that the VCZIs have a this position of power sustained by other historical colonial invaders, and there is no intention of permitting the establishment of an autonomous state for the native people, the choices are to become a pariah and either ethnically cleanse or otherwise eliminate the native presence in the area under the control of the colonizers or to integrate the native population into to the state established by the colonizers."

And concluded that I did not see other options. If you have another viable option present it.

So how is it that the arab muslims were allowed to create a state without hinderance, it is their free determination that is stopping them from from taking the last step towards full statehood.

 

[Phoenall]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

I see you're retreating from your silly "invasion" slogans, at least temporarily. Your simple minded reiteration of such silly slogans only serves to weaken your otherwise, ill considered and inarticulate sentence structuring around islamist propaganda.

Again, let's set aside your responses that are now taking the tack of repeating what I write. Very childish, by the way.

Do you see other post-invasion solutions beyond ethnic cleansing, genocide or integration of the native people? If you don't have an answer, there is no need to respond.

The native people have been integrated, it is the illegal arab muslim insurgents that have not been allowed to set down roots. The evidence of Winston Churchill alone shows that the arab muslims illegally migrated in their hordes with the intent of colonisation and genocide of the Jews. They failed because they cant trust one another, and so fought as individuals and not a cohesive force.

 

[Phoenall]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

How about the UN enforce international laws of 1923 and 1925 created by the LoN and force the arab muslims to submit to being evicted as they demanded be done and relocated in Jordan

 

[Shusha]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

 

[Shusha]

My being amused is a far cry from your emotional and angry retorts.

However, as stated, the issue is not whether or not there was an invasion, but rather post invasion, what the possible solutions are. I stated that I could see three, ethnic cleansing of the native people, elimination of the native people by other means. e.g. successful genocide, or integration of the native people.

Do you see any other solution?

If Israel had cleansed herself of the Arabs at the time of her founding, as the Arab nations ALL did, there would be no conflict. An irony that Israel, alone, attempted to do the morally correct thing.

The solution is a "population transfer" through land swaps and two states each with a reasonably homogeneous population.

 

[montelatici]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

 

[Hollie]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

As there was no invasion, your frantic cutting and pasting of the same slogans and clichés serves no purpose but to waste bandwidth.

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[montelatici]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

As there was no invasion, your frantic cutting and pasting of the same slogans and clichés serves no purpose but to waste bandwidth.

To get an answer out of you, let's fantasize that the indigenous people welcomed the arrival of the Europeans in great numbers (so now it is no longer an invasion) and for whatever reason these Europeans created a state for themselves named the state after their (and not the indigenous people's religions). expelled many of the indigenous people and we arrived at the same point we are now.

Are there any other solutions beyond those I specified? I think not.

 

[montelatici]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Of course there was an invasion, by the way. There is no other definition for what happened.

 

[Hollie]

et al,

It is virtually impossible to discuss any facet of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute with the pro-Palestinians.It really doesn't matter what aspect of the dispute you address, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) believe that they have the superior position.

Again, the HoAP hold the position that in 1967, Israel occupied Palestinian territory. However, in 1967, there was no State of Palestine.

EXCERPT: The Borders of Palestine: A Brief Background

View attachment 95318
​

This is a very subtle twist in the actual facts. While it sounds truthful, it is actually a very good piece of fallacious propaganda.

• The Armistice Line CANNOT BE the "internationally recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine." Why? Because in 1967 there was no State of Palestine. The State of Palestine is not declared until November 1988.
• In July 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom dissolved all ties with the West Bank Territory it annexed in April 1950. Upon cutting all ties, the West Bank (formerly the Israel occupied sovereign territory of Jordan). When the Jordanians cut all ties, and politically abandon the West Bank, it became unincorporated terra nullius in the hands of the Israeli government.
• In this key PLO-NAD position, the claim is that (as you can see) "no state may acquire territory by force." While the applicability of this "concept" is debatable, the true fact remains that Israel did NOT:

§ Incorporate the territory.
§ The territory was "abandon" by Jordan as the sovereign power.
§ With the exception of the land in Jerusalem, annexed by Israel, Israel DID NOT claim sovereignty over any part of the West Bank. Israel maintains effective control as required by the Hague Regulation.
​

While the PLO-NAD makes some valid points concerning the various disputes, the one most often heard repeated is that of territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

As I have stated before, the PLO started going weird in the 1970s and have since gone off the rails. And then you critique what they say through your misinformation. Your post is so incoherent I don't know where to start.

One thing you always get wrong is that Jordan annexed the West Bank. That did not happen. The West Bank was occupied Palestinian territory. Israel took over that occupation in 1967. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

Of course there was an invasion, by the way. There is no other definition for what happened.

"... because I say so."

 

[Hollie]

What is it called when people from one place go to another place, on another continent in this case, take over the land and expel and/or subjugate the native inhabitants?

If an indigenous people were expelled from their place of origin it is called a "return", or in the words of the legal documentation: the reconstitution of their National Homeland.

The people that invaded Palestine were Europeans. There was no return.

The indigenous people of Palestine are the same people that were there when the Europeans invaded. That they converted in time to Christianity and Islam did not change their indigenous status.

As there was no invasion, your frantic cutting and pasting of the same slogans and clichés serves no purpose but to waste bandwidth.

To get an answer out of you, let's fantasize that the indigenous people welcomed the arrival of the Europeans in great numbers (so now it is no longer an invasion) and for whatever reason these Europeans created a state for themselves named the state after their (and not the indigenous people's religions). expelled many of the indigenous people and we arrived at the same point we are now.

Are there any other solutions beyond those I specified? I think not.

In part, you have identified, all by yourself, the issues that cause you such angst: you spend too much time fantasizing and too little time dealing with objective reality.