Arabs in the Israeli Army

Palestine was an uninhabited desert.

Before the Jews came to Palestine and founded their state, the country was an uninhabited desert. At best, the Arabs roamed around in it with their camels.

That is what many people believe. There are even those who believe that it was the Jews that made the wilderness bloom, under which the Arabs are assumed to have come to Palestine from neighboring countries to reap the benefit of the results that Jews had achieved through their enthusiasm.

In fact Palestine was well populated, as it was cultivated, wherever this was possible. Following contemporary conditions, it was even quite densely populated, the terrain into account. This was already noted in the 19 century by a growing number of visitors from Europe

They included scholars who traveled the country in all directions and carefully recorded the hundreds of Arab villages' names on their cards, besides the numerous ruins that villagers designated for them. On this basis, they developed the 'Bible atlases'. But most of the visitors, however, had no scientific purpose of the trip. Their journey was religious in nature, since they wanted to visit the biblical land, and above all to pray at the holy places as pilgrims.

Anyway, the influx of visitors was so great that the famous publishers of guidebooks Karl Baedeker of Leipzig, in 1875 added a volume on Palestine to its well-known series. It was written with Germanic thoroughness by Professor Albert Socin, who was a great connoisseur of the Middle East and its history. A third edition, revised and expanded by dr. Benzinger, appeared in 1891. With Albert Socin´s work in mind, Dr. Benzinger did his travel through the area in the spring of the 1890th

By looking in his travel handbook from 1891, with its rich descriptions of routes, detailed maps and accurate historical information about the sights you get a vivid picture of life in Palestine in the last century. At that time the population is around 650,000 (including Transjordan). The visitors who came by ship from Europe, tempering usually Jaffa. About this city Benzinger writes:

“In recent years the city has grown considerably. The ancient city walls were demolished and graves to the north and south is now in the new suburbs. The population is estimated at more than 15,000. Trade is by no means negligible. Imports come mainly from Germany, and there is an export of soap, corn, sesame, pineapple and other fruits, and at the very latest of wine from Sarona”.

A prerequisite for peace between Israel and Palestine is that we recognize the historical facts as they exist. We must educate our children to take responsibility for our region and above all we must silence the religious freaks who preach hatred on both sides. It is so simple and yet so difficult. Dialogue is the only way - and we must be open to compromises where necessary.

Shalom aleikhem :type:
(Peace be upon you)
 
Well Seehund; It is impossible to determine when the Middle East region will turn to peace. The issues have been going on for a very long period of time and the situation is as complicated as it is frustrating. Middle East peace will only occur when all factions have been satisfied and are willing to sit down and talk with each other. When that can occur there could be an end to all war. Peace will come only through diplomacy and compromise.

An outsider to the region would find something valid in all sides of the conflict. In efforts to find Middle East peace, you would need to understand the history of the region and the reasons for the conflict. When the long and difficult history is studied, there are many valid points on both sides. This is the source of the problem when you are trying to find an end to the war. Peace will come when both sides are able to sacrifice and compromise.

Of course, this is a very simplistic view to a very complicated problem. How to have both sides of the conflict agree and compromise when they already feel as though they have done so. Middle East peace is a lofty goal, but with a history as troubled as it has been, it is a worthy pursuit. To end war, peace must be made the ideal goal. When there is an absence of war, peace will become the order of the day.

There is a long memory in the Middle East and this is a hindrance to the end of war. Peace will be difficult when the histories of these countries are remembered and retribution is considered such a worthy goal. It will be nearly impossible to find Middle East peace when the principle countries are reacting over centuries old issues and problems. The patience of the people in this area of the country is incredible and living together with people that have been hated for such a long time might be almost too much to bear. If there is a true desire for an end to war, peace for all and stability in the region, it will be necessary to learn how to live with the enemy. This is the road to Middle East peace.

All of these problems do not point to an impossible situation, just a very difficult one. With each new generation that comes of age in these countries there is hope for Middle East peace. To encourage an end to war, peace must be made a viable option for the youth in this area of the world. Middle East peace can occur if the youth of the country can learn the benefits of ending war. Peace in the region could be found if this were to occur. The youth have the power to finally bring about Middle East peace.

Efforts to reach the youth in these countries might prove to be difficult for an outside entity, but there may be factions within the countries that have an interest in promoting Middle East peace. The plan or strategy of these people should be a focus on the youth to end war. Peace will occur if the message can be spread among the young people as they grow up and learn about the world around them. If there is to be an end to war, peace must be taught to the youth. This is the future of Middle East peace.

Shalom aleikhem :type:
 
Well,... maybe opinions might be better informed if people used their eyes and ears instead of their @rsehole?

Having an opinion counts for nothing, it's what that opinion is based on that counts.

I've given you facts that you couldn't disprove, that's why you ignore them.
To use your own words, you went from pro-Israel to pro-palestinian, doesn't that make you a turncoat (as you mentioned in post 2 of this tread) ?
 
I'll guarantee I am far more aware of the work of B'Tselem than probably any other member of this site, and have participated in my own way for nearly 15 years. Several of my ex-Israeli relatives, now living in Australia make sure of that.

Well, that's very nobel of you. Working with such an organisation to prove the wrongdoing of fundamentalist settlers. I support that.

Then you'll also be aware of this problem:
In 2008, Natal, the Israel Center for Victims of Terror and War, conducted a study on the city of Sderot based on representative sampling. The study found that between 75 percent and 94 percent of Sderot children aged 4–18 exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress. 28 percent of adults and 30 percent of children had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The co-director of the study emphasized the distinction between post-traumatic stress symptoms, such as problems sleeping and concentrating, and PTSD itself, which can interfere seriously with daily life. (Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in October 2000, the city has been under constant rocket fire from Qassam rockets launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Sderot has a population of 20.900)

In case you distrust Natal, here's one from Amnesty International:
2009 report
Scores [of rockets] have struck homes, businesses, schools, other public buildings and vehicles in and around towns and villages in southern Israel. It is purely by chance that in most cases such strikes have not caused death or injury, and the lethal potential of such projectiles should not be underestimated. Above all, the constant threat of impending rocket attacks has caused fear and disrupted the lives of the growing number of Israelis who live within range of such attacks, reaching up to a million. (you called those rockets fireworks, remember?)
 
Before the Jews came to Palestine and founded their state, the country was an uninhabited desert. At best, the Arabs roamed around in it with their camels.

I agree with most of what you said. But let me make some corrections.

According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews.

1891 : 650,000 (including Transjordan)

250px-PalestineAndTransjordan.png


For descriptions of other parts of the country, we are indebted to the 1937 Report of the Palestine Royal Commission—though, for lack of space, we can quote but the briefest passages. In Chapter 9, para. 43 the Report quotes an eye-witness account of the condition of the Maritime Plain in 1913:
The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track suitable for transport by camels and carts . . . no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna village. . . . Not in a single village in all this area was water used for irrigation. . . . Houses were all of mud. No windows were anywhere to be seen. . . . The ploughs used were of wood. . . . The yields were very poor. . . . The sanitary conditions in the village were horrible. Schools did not exist. . . . The rate of infant mortality was very high. . . . The area north of Jaffa . . . consisted of two distinctive parts. . . . The eastern part, in the direction of the hills, resembled in culture that of the Gaza-Jaffa area. . . . The western part, towards the sea, was almost a
desert. . . . The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many ruins of villages were scattered over the area, as owing to the prevalence of malaria, many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.

An Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine to the League of Nations, June 1921
The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. [...] After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger proportions. Jewish agricultural colonies were founded. They developed the culture of oranges and gave importance to the Jaffa orange trade. They cultivated the vine, and manufactured and exported wine. They drained swamps. They planted eucalyptus trees. They practised, with modern methods, all the processes of agriculture. There are at the present time 64 of these settlements, large and small, with a population of some 15,000. Every traveller in Palestine who visits them is impressed by the contrast between these pleasant villages, with the beautiful stretches of prosperous cultivation about them, and the primitive conditions of life and work by which they are surrounded.
 
Last edited:
Well Seehund; It is impossible to determine when the Middle East region will turn to peace. The issues have been going on for a very long period of time and the situation is as complicated as it is frustrating. Middle East peace will only occur when all factions have been satisfied and are willing to sit down and talk with each other. When that can occur there could be an end to all war. Peace will come only through diplomacy and compromise.

An outsider to the region would find something valid in all sides of the conflict. In efforts to find Middle East peace, you would need to understand the history of the region and the reasons for the conflict. When the long and difficult history is studied, there are many valid points on both sides. This is the source of the problem when you are trying to find an end to the war. Peace will come when both sides are able to sacrifice and compromise.

Of course, this is a very simplistic view to a very complicated problem. How to have both sides of the conflict agree and compromise when they already feel as though they have done so. Middle East peace is a lofty goal, but with a history as troubled as it has been, it is a worthy pursuit. To end war, peace must be made the ideal goal. When there is an absence of war, peace will become the order of the day.

There is a long memory in the Middle East and this is a hindrance to the end of war. Peace will be difficult when the histories of these countries are remembered and retribution is considered such a worthy goal. It will be nearly impossible to find Middle East peace when the principle countries are reacting over centuries old issues and problems. The patience of the people in this area of the country is incredible and living together with people that have been hated for such a long time might be almost too much to bear. If there is a true desire for an end to war, peace for all and stability in the region, it will be necessary to learn how to live with the enemy. This is the road to Middle East peace.

All of these problems do not point to an impossible situation, just a very difficult one. With each new generation that comes of age in these countries there is hope for Middle East peace. To encourage an end to war, peace must be made a viable option for the youth in this area of the world. Middle East peace can occur if the youth of the country can learn the benefits of ending war. Peace in the region could be found if this were to occur. The youth have the power to finally bring about Middle East peace.

Efforts to reach the youth in these countries might prove to be difficult for an outside entity, but there may be factions within the countries that have an interest in promoting Middle East peace. The plan or strategy of these people should be a focus on the youth to end war. Peace will occur if the message can be spread among the young people as they grow up and learn about the world around them. If there is to be an end to war, peace must be taught to the youth. This is the future of Middle East peace.

Shalom aleikhem :type:

maybe this is a start:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/06/13/can-start-ups-move-forward-israelipalestinian-peace/

http://buildingmarkets.org/blogs/bl...ugh-entrepreneurship-in-israel-and-palestine/
 
I've given you facts that you couldn't disprove, that's why you ignore them.
To use your own words, you went from pro-Israel to pro-palestinian, doesn't that make you a turncoat (as you mentioned in post 2 of this tread) ?
No, it does not. I am not a "turncoat", because I am not a citizen of either group, and as such, constitutes no more than "a change of mind". Once again you lack of real understanding of the English language has led to a totally false assumption.

Anything I have ignored has been covered at length in this Forum previously (often several times) and I must admit the whole issue is starting to bore the tits off me However, bearing in mind the fact that I am only a two finger "hunt and peck" typist I do often just gloss over items that probably deserve much greater attention, but I do this in view of them having either been covered at length previously or being no more than blatant and obvious lies.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that you are the first to raise these points. Well,... as might be evidenced from MontyB's recent comments about the whole israel issue "still going on", you will find that you are no more than the last of a long line of failed Zionist apologists to have come here trying to justify their shameless criminal behaviour. I suppose that if I had a brain at all I would ignore you completely, (as I have said I would on several occasions), but there is something I find particularly annoying about persons such as yourself, who seem to work on that strange assumption that is almost a Zionist hallmark, "that lies and distortions, if repeated loud enough and often enough will gradually cover up, or even become the truth".

To any person with more than a solitary functioning brain cell, the huge mountain of evidence in the form of reports by International Organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, the IRC and a dozen others including video evidence of their claims, (some of which are run by Israelis), plus UN resolutions* and the findings of the ICJ, Israel has absolutely no case to support them. One tenth of this would shame any responsible country into getting their act together.

*The single fact that the UNHRC has raised more resolutions condemning Israel than all other countries combined, is evidence enough of Israel's true pariah status, (whether declared or not). To support this claim I add the link below, to an article written several years ago by the eminent and highly acclaimed Jewish professor, Tony Judt of NYU.

http://novalight.org/Israel-RogueState.html
 
Last edited:
Anything I have ignored has been covered at length in this Forum previously (often several times) and I must admit the whole issue is starting to bore the tits off me However, bearing in mind the fact that I am only a two finger "hunt and peck" typist I do often just gloss over items that probably deserve much greater attention, but I do this in view of them having either been covered at length previously or being no more than blatant and obvious lies.

You said the jews started with the attacks on Palestinians. I proved you were wrong. I gave you a date (fact), up untill today I am waiting for your answer. (and it isn't in your previous posts either.)

You said that the land belonged to the Palestinians , I proved you were wrong. It is not because you always lived there that it belongs to you. It belongs to the one that rules it. Whether you like it or not.

You said that all the Palestinian refugees were expelled from their homes by the Israelis. I proved you were wrong because there are NO records about how many were expelled, how many fled before and during the war. There are approx figures (25%) about the ones that stayed. (Abbas admitted they were partial or even fully responsible for the refugee problem!)

You said that 99% of terrorism is because of Israel. I gave you some questions and you answered YES to all of them. Then I asked you for the connection between Boko Harum's attacks in Nigeria and Israel. I'm still waiting for your answer.

I also said that, in my opinion, the two state soultion with 1967 borders could be the best deal, although the Israelis do have a point that their settlements are on land that is for grabs. The Palestinians refused it from the beginning. It's like someone has two apples. He gives one to the Israeli and one to the Palestinian. The Israeli takes it and the Palestinan throws it away because he wants all of them. Then the Israeli picks it up and bites in it and then the Palestinian cries foul.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that you are the first to raise these points. Well,... as might be evidenced from MontyB's recent comments about the whole israel issue "still going on", you will find that you are no more than the last of a long line of failed Zionist apologists to have come here trying to justify their shameless criminal behaviour. I suppose that if I had a brain at all I would ignore you completely, (as I have said I would on several occasions), but there is something I find particularly annoying about persons such as yourself, who seem to work on that strange assumption that is almost a Zionist hallmark, "that lies and distortions, if repeated loud enough and often enough will gradually cover up, or even become the truth".

Then answer the questions above.

To any person with more than a solitary functioning brain cell, the huge mountain of evidence in the form of reports by International Organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres, the IRC and a dozen others including video evidence of their claims, (some of which are run by Israelis), plus UN resolutions* and the findings of the ICJ, Israel has absolutely no case to support them. One tenth of this would shame any responsible country into getting their act together.

I never said the Israelis didn't do anything wrong. But you are silent about the Palestinian ones. But no problem, I wil give you some others.

Human Rights Watch : Abuses against Journalists by Palestinian Security Forces and Occupied Territories: Stop Use of Children in Suicide Bombings
ICJ : Condems attacks against civilians in Israel
You changed your mind from pro-Israel to anti, and you have the right to do so, so does Tony Judt. So you propably don't mind that Richard Goldstone also changed his mind : Reconsidering the Goldstone Report on Israel and war crimes


*The single fact that the UNHRC has raised more resolutions condemning Israel than all other countries combined, is evidence enough of Israel's true pariah status, (whether declared or not). To support this claim I add the link below, to an article written several years ago by the eminent and highly acclaimed Jewish professor, Tony Judt of NYU.

About UN : The UN's Refugees
And an article from Louis René Beres , a professor of Political Science at Purdue University in West Lafayette : Palestinian atrocities, Israeli retaliations and the law of war
 
Last edited:
You said the jews started with the attacks on Palestinians. I proved you were wrong. I gave you a date (fact), up untill today I am waiting for your answer. (and it isn't in your previous posts either.)
No you did not! The Jews were the first to form a specific organisations for the sole purpose of committing acts of Terror, (Terrorist organisations) Irgun Lehi, Stern gang etc., call them what you will. I know you will trot out the old Zionist lie that they were for defence, but there is no way that you or the Israelis can convince the world that the bombing of market places and assassination of members of the legitimate administration, and foreign diplomats was a form of defence.

You said that the land belonged to the Palestinians , I proved you were wrong. It is not because you always lived there that it belongs to you. It belongs to the one that rules it. Whether you like it or not.
Wrong and this was proved by me in the debate involving the word "ownership" which you admitted you did not even know the meaning of. Palestinian ownership was admitted by the Brits and acknowledged in the McMahion-Hussein agreement, it has also been admitted by such Israelis as David Ben Gurion.
David Ben Gurion said:
They see but one thing; we have come and we have stolen their land. Why would they accept that? -- David Ben Gurion.

You said that all the Palestinian refugees were expelled from their homes by the Israelis. I proved you were wrong because there are NO records about how many were expelled, how many fled before and during the war. There are approx figures (25%) about the ones that stayed. (Abbas admitted they were partial or even fully responsible for the refugee problem!)
Another fallacy that was disproved by me in Post #26 with sources provided outlining the destruction of approximately 530 -550 Palestinian settlements towns and villages by Israel in direct contravention of the one of the main conditions under which the formation of Israel was incorrectly allowed "that no harm come to the owners of the land". The Palestinians were responsible for this? Bullsh!t!!
If there are no records as you say, it is only because the Israelis either neglected to record the information (which I believe is untrue) or they destroyed them. No records are needed anyway as the evidence is till there.

This was merely the beginning of a deliberate policy of Ethnic cleansing that has continued to this day and freely admitted by many Israelis.
Ran haCohen said:
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"In Israel itself, however, the idea of "transfer" – the common euphemism for ethnic cleansing or mass deportation – is discussed openly" Source: [/FONT]http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h123002.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now,... that is three out of three. I'm not going bother going on, answering and re-answering that which has already been answered merely because you are just locked into your own world of denial or too stupid to comprehend what has been said. There is an old and very pertinent quote applicable in situations such as this.

"I can explain it to you,... but I can't understand it for you".


 
Last edited:
No you did not! The Jews were the first to form a specific organisations for the sole purpose of committing acts of Terror, (Terrorist organisations) Irgun Lehi, Stern gang etc., call them what you will. I know you will trot out the old Zionist lie that they were for defence, but there is no way that you or the Israelis can convince the world that the bombing of market places and assassination of members of the legitimate administration, and foreign diplomats was a form of defence.

You can prove it by giving a date before April 4–7, 1920 when Palestinians started to attack the Jews.
Those Jewish organisations were established after the Palestinian attacks.

Wrong and this was proved by me in the debate involving the word "ownership" which you admitted you did not even know the meaning of. Palestinian ownership was admitted by the Brits and acknowledged in the McMahion-Hussein agreement, it has also been admitted by such Israelis as David Ben Gurion.

Who was responsible for law and order? The British not the Arabs.
"Following its occupation by British troops in 1917–1918, Palestine was governed by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. In July 1920, the military administration was replaced by a civilian administration headed by a High Commissioner."
The name Palestine was never mentioned in the McMahon-Hussein agreement let alone that the British admitted Palestinian ownership.
You better read the McMahion-Hussein correspondence.
Your Ben Gurion quote is from The Jewish Paradox : A Personal Memoir (1978]) by Nahum Goldmann, as translated by Steve Cox, p. 99
Here's another Ben Gurion quote : Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.
Written statement (1920), as quoted in Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs : From Peace to War (1985) by Shabtai Teveth, p. 32.

Another fallacy that was disproved by me in Post #26 with sources provided outlining the destruction of approximately 530 -550 Palestinian settlements towns and villages by Israel in direct contravention of the one of the main conditions under which the formation of Israel was incorrectly allowed "that no harm come to the owners of the land". The Palestinians were responsible for this? Bullsh!t!!
If there are no records as you say, it is only because the Israelis either neglected to record the information (which I believe is untrue) or they destroyed them. No records are needed anyway as the evidence is till there.

April 23, 1948: Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."

September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

Dir Yassin (April 9-11, 1948)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ[/ame]

The Arabs started the war and the Israelis are responsible for refugees? So this means that when the Germans invaded Belgium in WWII that Belgium was responsible for the refugees????

If the Arabs didn't attack, those villages wouldn't be destroyed.

Now,... that is three out of three. I'm not going bother going on, answering and re-answering that which has already been answered merely because you are just locked into your own world of denial or too stupid to comprehend what has been said. There is an old and very pertinent quote applicable in situations such as this.

Make that zero out of three. You should go in politics, they also use strong words but they say nothing.

"I can explain it to you,... but I can't understand it for you".

So far you didn't explain anything to me. In order to convince me show me some real facts instead of BS from anti-zionist pages.

From in the beginning I've said that the 1967-border solution is a good one. Bad things were done and are being done by both sides, but you largely ignore the Palestinian/Arab ones and grossly exaggerate the Israeli ones. You want the destruction of Israel which is contradictory to International Law, something you like to use only if it is ant-Israel.
 
You can prove it by giving a date before April 4–7, 1920 when Palestinians started to attack the Jews.
Those Jewish organisations were established after the Palestinian attacks.



Who was responsible for law and order? The British not the Arabs.
"Following its occupation by British troops in 1917–1918, Palestine was governed by the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration. In July 1920, the military administration was replaced by a civilian administration headed by a High Commissioner."
The name Palestine was never mentioned in the McMahon-Hussein agreement let alone that the British admitted Palestinian ownership.
You better read the McMahion-Hussein correspondence.
Your Ben Gurion quote is from The Jewish Paradox : A Personal Memoir (1978]) by Nahum Goldmann, as translated by Steve Cox, p. 99
Here's another Ben Gurion quote : Under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them. Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement, should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.
Written statement (1920), as quoted in Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs : From Peace to War (1985) by Shabtai Teveth, p. 32.



April 23, 1948: Jamal Husseini, the chairman of the Palestine Higher Committee, told the UN Security Council that instead of accepting the Haganah's truce offer, the Arabs "preferred to abandon their homes, their belongings, and everything they possessed in the world and leave the town."

September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the AHC, as saying: "The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

Dir Yassin (April 9-11, 1948)


Make that zero out of three. You should go in politics, they also use strong words but they say nothing.



So far you didn't explain anything to me. In order to convince me show me some real facts instead of BS from anti-zionist pages.

From in the beginning I've said that the 1967-border solution is a good one. Bad things were done and are being done by both sides, but you largely ignore the Palestinian/Arab ones and grossly exaggerate the Israeli ones. You want the destruction of Israel which is contradictory to International Law, something you like to use only if it is ant-Israel.

I never said a thing about the destuction of israel, what I have said, is that it cannot be on land owned by another people. This is supported by International law and has beenposted on this forum several times. Is this another of your distortions of the truth or is it a lack of understanding of the language??
As I said, three out of three,.... your squirming did not disprove a thing I said, all you have done is provide pro Zionist propaganda based on lies and distortions as has been proven here a number of times and admitted by Israel. You don't have a leg to stand on either legally or morally.

The reason I ignore any so called Palestinian "Bad things" is that Israel is the aggressor and continues to be so. As MontyB is demonstrating in your other thread, Israel backed by the US have never acted in good faith, only ever using any Palestian ceasefires to further expand and consolidate their theft of land. Your rather ridiculous examples of Israeli "offers" count for nothing as all they were doing was returning what they had illegaly occupied in the first place. When a criminal is forced to return what he has stolen it in no way excuses him from his original crime.

I will say it again, the single fact that so many International organisations have condemned israel and that they have had more UNHRC resolutions raised against them than all other countries combined, is ample proof that I am correct.
 
Last edited:
As I said, three out of three,....

I will say it again, you are wrong, and the single fact that so many International organisations have condemned Israel, and that they have had more UNHRC resolutions raised against them than all other countries combined, is ample proof that I am correct.

Or are you going to resort to that standard Zionist excuse that it is all a Anti Semitic plot by the rest of world, and me in particular?
 
Last edited:
As I said, three out of three,....

I will say it again, you are wrong, and the single fact that so many International organisations have condemned Israel, and that they have had more UNHRC resolutions raised against them than all other countries combined, is ample proof that I am correct.

Or are you going to resort to that standard Zionist excuse that it is all a Anti Semitic plot by the rest of world, and me in particular?

Don't you or won't you understand the difference between people living somewhere and people running the place?

I'll explain that with a very easily to understand example:
Suppose I own (personal ownership) land and people are living on it to cultivate that land for me. That land has been in the hands of my family for a long time, the ancestors of the people working the land also worked for my family. Then you come along and give me a good price for my land and I sell it to you. According to your explanation the people living on the land and working for generations for me and my family become the owners ?? And you say that it is supported by international law??
The same for the Palestinians. They lived there but the Turks ruled. Then the British came with a mandate and they ruled. They decided to split the land because they ruled it and there's noting the people living there can do something about it, not the Jews and not the Palestinians. The only thing they could do is lobby to get as much as possible, and neither got what they wanted.
When Czechoslovakia was split up between the czech republic and Slovakia it is because the rulers choosed to and not because people were living there for hundreds of years.
Why didn't the Palestinians apply for a state when the Turks ruled??
Why refused they the land given to them by the UN?
Why didn't they asked for a nation when Jordan annexed it?
And now they are going to the UN to get a nation that they didn't ask for or refused in the past?
You say the Jews started all this and I am still waiting for your dates to prove it! The Arabs started attacking the Jews and the Arabs started attacking the British. Facts proven by dates!
And one other thing, both the Israelis and the Palestinians started with a grossly undeveloped land. Look at where Israel and the Palestinians stand today. Israel cared about their people, their prosperety and their safety. The Palestinians only cared about fighting the Jews, and where are they today? Without outside financial help they cannot even pay their officials! And don't start about the refugees because all the Jews from the Arab countries were expelled, finances and everything confiscated. (I wonder where the UN was?). Do they live in refugee camps? No. Israel and other countries let them in. Why didn't the Arabs states did the same? (and not all Palestinians were expelled, I've proven that already!) Fortunately Palestinians (with a normal education and not the brainwashed ones) started to see this too as you can see here.
0 out of 3, that's what you get. And instead of searching for anti-zionist pages you better look at a neutral one like this.
And what about the American support of Israel? Wait till Obama loses the presidential race and a republican takes over, then the Palestinians can forget the 1967 borders for at least another 4 years.
I wonder when the Palestinian leadership is ever gonna learn and think about their people's prosperity and safety and stop thinking about defeating the Jews.
You love UN resolutions? look at this one and this.
This is what Soviet delegate Andrei Gromyko told the Security Council, May 29, 1948 :This is not the first time that the Arab states, which organized the invasion of Palestine, have ignored a decision of the Security Council or of the General Assembly. The USSR delegation deems it essential that the council should state its opinion more clearly and more firmly with regard to this attitude of the Arab states toward decisions of the Security Council (Security Council Official Records, SA/Agenda/77, (May 29, 1948), p. 2.)
Most UN resolutions against Israel are nonbinding "recommendations". The binding ones were fulfilled.
 
Don't you or won't you understand the difference between people living somewhere and people running the place?
Yes I do,... but it certainly seems that you do not as you appear to have forgotten, that it was I who had to explain the difference between "occupiers" and "owners" to you some weeks ago. And you apologised saying that you did not understand the difference.
Sorry Seno, my mistake. I thought that owning ment having it , I dindn't know that it has something to do with legality. The dictionary I found first wasn't quite accurate (see below).
Now this point is a great example of what I have been referring to as your "circular argument", where you have something explained to you, but if it does not suit your particular point of view, you then just ignore the facts and use the same argument to support your point of view.

I'm sorry, but I'm not so old yet that my memory has failed.
 
Last edited:
Yes I do,... but it certainly seems that you do not as you appear to have forgotten, that it was I who had to explain the difference between "occupiers" and "owners" to you some weeks ago. And you apologised saying that you did not understand the difference.
Now this point is a great example of what I have been referring to as your "circular argument", where you have something explained to you, but if it does not suit your particular point of view, you then just ignore the facts and use the same argument to support your point of view.

Well I am very glad with this reply, because it shows you how you work. You pick something out that suites you but you do not tell everything. My native language is not English, but you damn well knew what I ment. And I try very hard to explain myself in English and this is the dictionary that I used to look up the definition of that word. The link you forgot in your reply:

"own
To have or possess
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/owning"

own (n)
adj.
Of or belonging to oneself or itself: She makes her own clothes.
n.
That which belongs to one: I wanted a room of my own.
v. owned, own·ing, owns
v.tr.
1.
a. To have or possess as property: owns a chain of restaurants.
b. To have control over: For a time, enemy planes owned the skies.
2. To admit as being in accordance with fact, truth, or a claim; acknowledge.
v.intr.
To make a full confession or acknowledgment: When confronted with the evidence the thief owned up. See Synonyms at acknowledge.
Idiom:
on (one's) own
1. By one's own efforts: She got the job on her own.
2. Responsible for oneself; independent of outside help or control: He is now out of college and on his own.

Tell me where the word "rightful" is.

And another thing, that discussion was NOT about the difference between "occupiers" and "owners" like you say but between "Ownership and Possession"

See your post 239 in the tread "Israel rightfully own the West Bank"

And the reason why you do this all the time is because you are wrong but won't admit it.

BTW, I am still waiting for your answers!!

I'm sorry, but I'm not so old yet that my memory has failed.

That's what you say, but you better check it.
 
Well I am very glad with this reply, because it shows you how you work. You pick something out that suites you but you do not tell everything. My native language is not English, but you damn well knew what I ment. And I try very hard to explain myself in English and this is the dictionary that I used to look up the definition of that word. The link you forgot in your reply:
I have acknowledged before that English is not your first language and I do realise that it is a very difficult language.

But once again you have chosen a meaning of the word that just does not and can not apply in the case of this debate. The word "own" has many meanings which are totally dependent upon the way it is used. You have merely chosen the incorrect one

Tell me where the word "rightful" is.
Now this is how you get into difficulties,.... I am presuming that you mean "Tell me what the word "rightful" is".

The answer being in the case of "Rightful" ownership being legal ownership as defined under law.


And another thing, that discussion was NOT about the difference between "occupiers" and "owners" like you say but between "Ownership and Possession"
And again you fall into the same trap.

"Occupiers", may "possess" something but they do not "own" it. And where it applies to this debate is that Israel occupies land that they do not own therefore it may be said that they possess it, but do not own it.
And the reason why you do this all the time is because you are wrong but won't admit it.

BTW, I am still waiting for your answers!!
Well you have them now. If you think I'm not correct in what I am telling you, please feel free to ask any other member here who has English as a first language. It is obvious that you do not even have the most basic understanding of "ownership" and "possession" which makes you entire point of view invalid, and this debate pointless.

That's what you say, but you better check it.
Well,... the answer to that is simple and clear cut. It was I who remembered our previous discussion on this subject not you, so don't try to be a Fukwit with me, as you will find that you are completely out of your depth.
 
Last edited:
I have acknowledged before that English is not your first language and I do realise that it is a very difficult language.

But once again you have chosen a meaning of the word that just does not and can not apply in the case of this debate. The word "own" has many meanings which are totally dependent upon the way it is used. You have merely chosen the incorrect one

Is that all you can throw at me? The meaning of the word "own". As a clever human being you must have known the meaning of that word in that sentence / discussion. You knew what we were talking about and since you can only come up with that silly argument I assume you had nothing against my argument.

Now this is how you get into difficulties,.... I am presuming that you mean "Tell me what the word "rightful" is".

The answer being in the case of "Rightful" ownership being legal ownership as defined under law.

Can't you read? I wrote "where". I gave you a link and I also wrote it down for you. Now show me where the word "rightfull" is.


And again you fall into the same trap.

"Occupiers", may "possess" something but they do not "own" it. And where it applies to this debate is that Israel occupies land that they do not own therefore it may be said that they possess it, but do not own it.
Well you have them now. If you think I'm not correct in what I am telling you, please feel free to ask any other member here who has English as a first language. It is obvious that you do not even have the most basic understanding of "ownership" and "possession" which makes you entire point of view invalid, and this debate pointless.

Because you are the expert in the English language, please answer this question:
Can an "occupier " own something that belongs to no one?

Well,... the answer to that is simple and clear cut. It was I who remembered our previous discussion on this subject not you, so don't try to be a Fukwit with me, as you will find that you are completely out of your depth.
No I am not, now please answer the questions (you very well know which ones) and stop beating around the bush.
 
Is that all you can throw at me? The meaning of the word "own". As a clever human being you must have known the meaning of that word in that sentence / discussion. You knew what we were talking about and since you can only come up with that silly argument I assume you had nothing against my argument.
If you care to check back, you will find that it was you who bought up the subject of ownership and possession in post. #55

Can't you read? I wrote "where". I gave you a link and I also wrote it down for you. Now show me where the word "rightfull" is.
I can read very well but as I was easily able to find where "rightful" was the dictionary you quoted so I assumed you meant what it meant. (Why you would ask either question is beyond me). It might have helped if you quoted where I used the word rightful, as it has a number of interpretations, each dependent on how and where the word is used.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rightful
Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia
right·ful
adj.

1. in accordance with what is right; proper or just
2. (prenominal) having a legally or morally just claim the rightful owner
3. (prenominal) held by virtue of a legal or just claim my rightful property
rightfully adv
rightfulness n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because you are the expert in the English language, please answer this question:
Can an "occupier " own something that belongs to no one?
Yes without a doubt, but we know that the land in question been owned for thousands of years and in particular to this debate, under the ruling of Terra Nullius the land where Israel is located was already occupied and those occupants were Internationally recognised as the owners, they were the Palestinian people.

No I am not, now please answer the questions (you very well know which ones) and stop beating around the bush.
Ask again, as it seems i have great difficulty in following your convoluted logic and have no idea what questions you are talking about, and while you are at it, you might tell me how you argument holds water in view of my statement in post #48, regarding international condemnation of Israel for Crimes against humanity by a number of well recognised International human rights organisations and the fact that Israel has more UN resolutions raised against it's behaviour than all other countries combined.
 
Last edited:
If you care to check back, you will find that it was you who bought up the subject of ownership and possession in post. #55

yes, it was a simple explanation of something you didn't , and still don't, understand.

I can read very well but as I was easily able to find where "rightful" was the dictionary you quoted so I assumed you meant what it meant. (Why you would ask either question is beyond me). It might have helped if you quoted where I used the word rightful, as it has a number of interpretations, each dependent on how and where the word is used.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rightful
Also found in: Legal, Wikipedia
right·ful
adj.

1. in accordance with what is right; proper or just
2. (prenominal) having a legally or morally just claim the rightful owner
3. (prenominal) held by virtue of a legal or just claim my rightful property
rightfully adv
rightfulness n
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I regard this answer as saying : no, I didn't find the word in the link you gave me.

Yes without a doubt, but we know that the land in question been owned for thousands of years and in particular to this debate, under the ruling of Terra Nullius the land where Israel is located was already occupied and those occupants were Internationally recognised as the owners, they were the Palestinian people.

First of all, the ruling of Terra Nullius is invalid here. And it is not because people live(d) there that they own(ed) it or rule(d) it.
Second, show me where it says that the Palestinians are internationally recognised as the owners.
Third, following your reasoning here's a part of a nice article about it written by Steven Plaut:

...If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arabs imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may return control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!

Ask again, as it seems i have great difficulty in following your convoluted logic and have no idea what questions you are talking about, and while you are at it, you might tell me how you argument holds water in view of my statement in post #48, regarding international condemnation of Israel for Crimes against humanity by a number of well recognised International human rights organisations and the fact that Israel has more UN resolutions raised against it's behaviour than all other countries combined.

You were able to find post 48 and 55 so you can easily find the post with the questions. Finding the questions is not your problem, finding the answers is.
 
Back
Top