Arabs in the Israeli Army - Page 6




 
--
 
November 11th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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)


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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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.
November 11th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
November 11th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
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?
--
November 12th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.
November 12th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
November 13th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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!!

Quote:
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.
November 13th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
November 14th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
November 14th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
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.
November 15th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!

Quote:
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.
 


Similar Topics
How Would You Solve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Tom Gross on the forgotten Rachels
US Army bans use of privately bought armor
The First Ethnic Chief Of The Indian Army
US Army recruited an autistic teenager as Cav Scout