Arabs in the Israeli Army - Page 8




 
--
 
November 16th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Well I guess I will attempt to move things back on topic (or at least I think it is the topic)
I found this rather interesting...

The Enemy Within The Israeli Army

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20111116.aspx
Wherever there are religious extremists there's trouble. Only adults should be alowed in religious schools, or better yet, no religious schools.
The Israeli army is better of with less fighting men than a complete army with a bunch of (well armed) hotheads.

Back on track!
November 17th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Are you crazy or what????
---snip-- all covered previously and sources supplied
In the case Mabo v Queensland Terra nullius was rejected.
And hasn't that been my point all along? Disproving your rather naive statement that the Palestinians were not the "owners" of the land. This was backed up in the last two posts that I have quoted. FFS I live here and followed the case from day one and you are trying to tell me that I don't understand. Not only do I understand, I also agree with it,... and again, this is why your argument that the Palestinians had no claim is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You better read the definition of Terra nullius.
Once again if you care to read back you will find that it was I who posted the definition of Terra Nullius to you..... in rebuttal of your argument that the Palestinians were not the "owners" of the land. Once you saw this, and realised I was correct, you then tried to argue that ownership and possession were one and the same, which I again shot down and you apologised for your lack of understanding.

You keep shooting your own argument in the @rse, it's just a pity for you that you are such a good shot. LOL

I think I might take MontyB up on his offer and ignore further comments of yours until you can come up with something better that a repetition of your disproven theories and lies based on nothing better than 2000 year old religious mumbo jumbo.
November 17th, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
And hasn't that been my point all along? Disproving your rather naive statement that the Palestinians were not the "owners" of the land. This was backed up in the last two posts that I have quoted. FFS I live here and followed the case from day one and you are trying to tell me that I don't understand. Not only do I understand, I also agree with it,... and again, this is why your argument that the Palestinians had no claim is wrong.
You seriously mix up the situation in Australia (Mabo v Queensland) and the one in Palestine. The Meriam people on the Murray Islands always lived there, ruled there and owned it as a nation because no one else came there.
The Palestinians always lived there, never ruled there and never owned it as a nation.
BTW the verdict of Mabo v Queensland was not an unanimous decision.

Quote:
Once again if you care to read back you will find that it was I who posted the definition of Terra Nullius to you..... in rebuttal of your argument that the Palestinians were not the "owners" of the land.
You posted this on 29sep2011 in post #98 (Israel rightfully own the West Bank) :
"..., and in view of Terra Nullius, the UN ruling was invalid, because neither the UN nor anyone else, has the legal power to just give away the land owned by anyone else. That is exactly the reasoning behind Terra Nullius."

First, you once told me I shot myself in the foot, but with this one you just blew your legs off! This proves that you do not know what terra nullius is all about.
Even the ICJ confirms the UN ruling was valid. Prof. Paul De Waart said that the Court put the legality of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 1947 UN Plan of Partition beyond doubt once and for all.
Second, your reasoning behind Terra Nullius is completely wrong. Terra Nullius is used when land belongs to no one. Otherwise it is not used, you don't talk about it, it's invalid.


Quote:
Once you saw this, and realised I was correct, you then tried to argue that ownership and possession were one and the same, which I again shot down and you apologised for your lack of understanding.
You were never correct and I proved that more than once. It is not because you keep repeating it that it becomes true.

Quote:
You keep shooting your own argument in the @rse, it's just a pity for you that you are such a good shot. LOL
Just your opinion.

Quote:
I think I might take MontyB up on his offer and ignore further comments of yours until you can come up with something better that a repetition of your disproven theories and lies based on nothing better than 2000 year old religious mumbo jumbo.
You're free to do that.
BTW I have no disproven theories just facts and dates.
--
November 18th, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You were never correct and I proved that more than once. It is not because you keep repeating it that it becomes true.
Never correct?... Well, why did you apologise for being wrong?
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).
Your "proof" only lacks one thing,... truth. Virtually all of your points are based on the same "not quite accurate" information. Like the "fact" you quoted to MontyB about the stolen land being "disputed". Both you and I know, that the only ones disputing it are the Israelis and even their only ally, the US, denies the validity of that.

It is "logic" such as this that makes you whole argument nothing more than a denial, without the slightest basis in truth.
November 21st, 2011  
VDKMS
 

Bedouin who serve in Israel's army

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
Never correct?... Well, why did you apologise for being wrong? Your "proof" only lacks one thing,... truth. Virtually all of your points are based on the same "not quite accurate" information. Like the "fact" you quoted to MontyB about the stolen land being "disputed". Both you and I know, that the only ones disputing it are the Israelis and even their only ally, the US, denies the validity of that.
It is "logic" such as this that makes you whole argument nothing more than a denial, without the slightest basis in truth.
Never correct?... Well, why did you apologise for being wrong? Your "proof" only lacks one thing,... truth. Virtually all of your points are based on the same "not quite accurate" information. Like the "fact" you quoted to MontyB about the stolen land being "disputed". Both you and I know, that the only ones disputing it are the Israelis and even their only ally, the US, denies the validity of that.
It is "logic" such as this that makes you whole argument nothing more than a denial, without the slightest basis in truth.
What was your "logic" behind the changing of words in a "quote" of mine? I call that cheating, and it shows to what length you go to distort the truth! I made a complaint about your post with my changed quote and is was removed.

Check this:

Some of my questions.
Is Islamic terrorism in Nigeria about Israel?
Is Islamic terrorism in Indonesia about Israel?
Is Islamic terrorism in the Philippines about Israel?
And I can add other countries: Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Chechnya, India and I probably forgot some.
Your answer: The answer to all the above is, Yes
elaborate please. Up untill now you didn't.

You said : "All you need to do is read the recognised world Press, AAP Reuters etc."
Then read this: Reuters Wrong on “Right”

You said : "Al Qaeda only came into being to fight the Israel and their supporters"
Then read this : It operates as a network comprising both a multinational, stateless army and a radical Sunni Muslim movement calling for global Jihad.

you said : "we have already shown that it was the Zionists who first started terrorising the Palestinians and Brithish administration."
and "It has already been shown here (several times) that it was the Zionists who started with terrorist acts against the Palestinians and sources have been supplied."
No you didn't. British Mandate of Palestine April 4–7, 1920 Palestine riots: five Jews killed and hundreds wounded. They also ransacked the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, attacked pedestrians and looted shops and homes. More info here.
In 1936 the Arabs started attacking the British. More info here.

I posted: "Since when is buying land legally an act of terror??"
You replied : When it is done with the intent of locking the owners out. This has been judges by the ICJ as "ethnic cleansing" and is illegal. Source: http://www.israellawresourcecenter.o...des/sgil1i.htm
Show me in your link the connection between my post and your reply. A search of the words buy and land gave 0 results. The search "own" gave this : "The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;" and this "The right to own property alone as well as in association with others;"

You said "...they (the Brits) had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.
Show me where they said that.

You said :"It is recognised under Terra Nullius, that the occupiers of that land,... were the Palestinian people, they therefore they owned the land and were the only people with any legitimate right to it" and "and in view of Terra Nullius, the UN ruling was invalid, because neither the UN nor anyone else, has the legal power to just give away the land owned by anyone else. That is exactly the reasoning behind Terra Nullius." and "Just because the Nazis committed the Holocaust gives the Jews no right to take land owned by the Palestinians,... Terra Nullius remember?"
This is completely wrong. Definition of Terra Nullius here.

You said : "...Anyway, the Brits as administrators of Palestine, had no legal right to enter into any agreements regarding the ownership of that land with persons other than with the native population"
Fact is : "The United Nations Palestine Commission was created by United Nations Resolution 181. It was responsible for implementing the UN Partition Plan of Palestine and acting as the Provisional Government of Palestine."
more info United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and Resolution 181

You said: "There's nothing immoral about wanting what is rightfully yours."
Then why did they wait so long to claim it? Did they ever fought the Ottoman Turks because they were "occupying their" land? And the Turks are no Arabs.

You said: "The Palestinians had asked for a homeland of their own, and were in fact promised it by the British, in agreement for their help in defeating the Turks." and "Palestine and Palestinian Rights, were high on the agenda of the British administration in 1915 when they promised the Palestinian people a homeland of their own in return for a general revolt by them, against the Turks."
The British promised an Arab state to the Arabs, not the Palestinians. In fact Emir Faisal (King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920) was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs" (Chaim Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, ibid, p. 210).
Show me which Palestinian unit helped the British in their fight against the Turks? There was a Jewish Legion (5 battalions) who fought in the battles of Jerusalem (1917) and Megiddo (1918).

You said: "Absolute rubbish, there were many places the Jews could go."
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS : Article 14.(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
Jews were persecuted in Germany and Russia.

You said : "Wikipedia being a site where the Jewish pro Zionist group CAMERA are known to operate"
This argument is invalid because it was exposed in 2008

For now this will do.
November 21st, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
Unl
For now this will do.
Naahhh,..... sorry but it doesn't change a thing, as only the pro Zionists believe their own propaganda, certainly not all Jews.

You are a waste of time and effort and I no longer care what you would like to "think", as I can explain things to you, but I can't understand them for you.
November 22nd, 2011  
Dave Miller
 
The central figure in the Arab nationalist movement at the time of World War I was Hussein ibn 'Ali, who was appointed by the Turkish Committee of Union and Progress to the position of Sherif of Mecca in 1908. As Sherif, Hussein was responsible for the custody of Islam's shrines in the Hejaz and, consequently, was recognized as one of the Muslims’ spiritual leaders.

In July 1915, Hussein sent a letter to Sir Henry MacMahon, the High Commissioner for Egypt, informing him of the terms for Arab participation in the war against the Turks.

The letters between Hussein and MacMahon that followed outlined the areas that Britain was prepared to cede to the Arabs. The Hussein-MacMahon correspondence conspicuously fails to mention Palestine. The British argued the omission had been intentional, thereby justifying their refusal to grant the Arabs independence in Palestine after the war. MacMahon explained:

"I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein."

Nevertheless, the Arabs held then, as now, that the letters constituted a promise of independence for the Arabs in Palestine. The reality is that Arabs residing west of the Jordan river were never promised political independence by the British.

The U.N. offered the Palestinians a state with the UN resolution of 1947. But they turned it down for war with us. Better that a Jewish state not come into existence than have their own country. If they hadn't opted for war there would be an independent Palestine and not a single Arab would have become a refugee. They have largely themselves to thank for their predicament.
November 22nd, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Oh great in a thread that has been circling the drain for weeks someone has just turned the tap on again.
November 22nd, 2011  
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Oh great in a thread that has been circling the drain for weeks someone has just turned the tap on again.
But it never offered a single fact that has not already been discredited.

The same tired old Zionist rhetoric.
November 22nd, 2011  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Oh great in a thread that has been circling the drain for weeks someone has just turned the tap on again.
Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
But it never offered a single fact that has not already been discredited.
The same tired old Zionist rhetoric.
We all know how you discredit posts. Wrong links, wrongly read articles and distorted facts.
 


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