Wouldn't want to leave out the earlier ones where Jews were found guilty of existing on planet earth; Battle of Tel Hai, Nebi Musa riots, Jaffa riots, Palestine Riots.
Right now there are 13 cases of major Israeli aggressions on the list. The only one that was previously against the Arabs was the Yom Kippur war, and that was recently overturned because it was shown not to be an attack against Israel but an attack against Israeli forces OCCUPYING Arab territory. The attack cannot therefore be construed as an attack on Israel. It is clearly a retaliation for Israel's two refusals to come to the table and her refusal to negotiate the implementation of "242". The only clear aggression by the Arabs so far is the 1948 invasion of Israel and we saw that that was in retaliation for the illegal declaration of Independence by Israel, defying dozens of items required by "181" and then having the nerve to claim that the declaration of independence was made in full compliance. A few weeks ago you tried to make this "full compliance" claim and were shown the error of your MYTH. So, was it REALLY an aggression? # Should those illegal violations of world recommendations (made in "181") have been considered to be benign by the Arabs? Why, Borat? # Should pre-15 May incursions by Israel into Arab designated territory have been considered to be acceptable and not to warrant the Arabs lifting a finger? Why, Borat? # Should Israel's flagrant disregard for the non-Israeli status of East Jerusalem have been allowed to pass unnoticed by the Arabs? Why, Borat? # Should the Arabs have pretended that Deir Yassin never happened? Why, Borat? # Should the Arabs have ignored the fact that by 15 May 1948, approximately 400 000 Arabs and Christians had been driven out of that part which had been allocated as Jewish state? And we are not even addressing the fact that "181" was a flagrant violation of two international laws: The UN Charter and the Mandate for Palestine. And given all of the above, you claim that Arab retaliation was not justified on 15 May 1948, yet you find it fully justified when Israel attacks Arab territory because a homemade rocket frightened a passing goat!! Is your playing field fully level, Borat?
GA Resolutions are not mandatory orders Klip. Otherwise the Palestinians would have had no choice but to accept and you would have nothing to silly to post save maybe defending the antics of the Westboro Church or something ludicrous like that.
Drew, you are about number 17 on the list of Apologists to try that excuse. What is does is to show that your appreciation of "181" is faulty. Sure it is not binding. It was never meant to be. But do you know why this is, and WHERE "181" obtained its binding authority from? No? OK - allow me to help you. Use this reference (click here). That will you will be able to see what "181" in fact approved. Have you got it now, Drew? Still not? OK, I will spell it out. UN General Assembly resolution 181 was a RECOMMENDATION to the Mandate Holder, Great Britian. Even though it is not binding, were the Mandate holder to accept it or part of it, then those aspects would become fully binding by virtue of the Mandate Holder's authority under the League of Nations Mandate document which was binding on the UN as the successor to the League. Still not got t? OK, read this part of the introduction to the resolution: So I am not sure what your hysterical laughter is about. It seems to have backfired. To take all of this a step further, you need to find out what Britain's reaction to "181" was. Did she accept it? All of it? How? What bits did she put into BINDING action? When? Who was the Mandate successor, if anyone? Who ultimately was granted ownership of the mandate? When did it expire? What happened to the unresolved bits? To find those out you need to read all of the correspondence after the approval of "181" right up until the moment that Zionists terrorists assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte.
That's in your personal history book buddy, and you can keep reading it together with snake and Jack....you are not fooling anyone with your laughable claims, the arabs have been the aggressors in every case, starting wars, waging non-stop terror campaigns, murdering civilians, firing rockets at peaceful Israeli population. Of course in every case Israel retaliated as it should have but the Arabs (not Israel) were the initiator of every cycle of hostilities. The arabs are dead set on wiping Israel off the map, not the other way around.
When did I change "Example 1 of Israeli invasion of Arab territory in early 1848" to anything else. But I am glad that you admit that the Zionist invasion also involved "attrocities" and terror. I am most pleased. Cough up. Typical of am empty quiver. Next!!
When you agreed that 7 arab countries illegally in violation of all international laws and norms invaded Israel on the day of its declaration with the explicit goal of wiping Israel off the map and driving the jews into the sea. Instead you started bleating about terrorism.....completely ignoring decades on non-stop barbaric arab terrorism against peaceful Jewish citizens of Palestine.
Good. You have managed to see the effect of the Zionist attacks on the Arab people, including the ethnic cleansing of about 1/3rd of the Palestinians did you get that, Borat, some 400 000 souls well before the Arab countries invaded. Wriggle-wriggle was that a massive Zionist aggression or not, Borat? And PLEEEEEAAAZE dont try to BS us that this aggression was due to the invasion by the 7 Arab countries that you quote ad nauseum, but which had not yet happened. Borat, to use a future event to excuse a past one is a monstrous logical fallacy. Honestly. Ask Jonsa and Drew. But wait .. you left out a major event, Borat; the very first one. You left out the Jews who were slaughtered at the Haifa oil refinery. Why did you leave out the first major altercation? http://www.mideastweb.org/refriots.htm Who was this Etzel? A militant Arab labour movement? A Syrian-based Arab terror cell?
And while we're on the subject of cloven-hoofed quadrupeds: http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...khter-karagandy-sacrifice-sheep-ahead-2190352
1) Kfar Etzion massacre May 13, 1948 127-157 Jews killed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Etzion_massacre Oh-oh!!! A revenge retaliation for a monstrous prior Zionist crime. 2) Hadassah medical convoy massacre April 13, 1948 Arab militants 78 78 Jews (nurses, doctors, and patients) killed This was a military convoy commanded by the Jerusalem Haganah officer lieutenant, Asher Rahav. “Arab shouts of "Minshan Deir Yassin" (For Deir Yassin) could he heard”. 3) It is my understanding that Gosh Etzion was in Arab-designated territory. It was reinforced with Haganah and Palmah combatants. It was those soldiers who were the target of the attack. Just like Israel attacks schools full of children because there are “militants” within. But I may be wrong. NEXT!!
Myth Busted! - "defying dozens of items required by "181" Nice attempt to slide that one by us Klip. And so is accusing a fellow poster of remaining silent on a question you only asked in the same paragraph.
I can see that you didn't read as widely as I suggested you should. You see, Drew, the Mandate power did not oppose the UN recommendation. However, it did refuse to participate in its implementation. A professor of North-West University School of Law quoted as an expert and kindly made known to us by HBendor, put it this way: The detail lies in two letters - one September 1947 and the other February 1948 - from Britain. So, Drew, with Britain's passive acceptance, "181" became binding, not as a UN General Assembly resolution, but as a recommendation accepted by the Mandate authority And Israel broke dozens of those now-binding rules. Get it now?.
Yes I get it and it is well wrongly manipulated... I did give Anthony DAmato's views as controversial as they are... but for just one reason only to compare them with the present interpretations of some pretenders here. Here is a veridical version that Prof. Damato forgot perhaps to mention. Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting (emphasis mine) their national home in that country; and ... (Preamble) The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic Conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble.... (Art. 2) An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognized as public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic social and other matters as may affect the establishment o the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine,. (Art. 4) The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State land and waste lands not required for public purposes (Article 6) (emphasis added) An Italian attempt at San Remo to protect the national, as well as the civil and religious, rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" was defeated. Lord Curzon, critical though he had been of the Balfour Declaration, preserved it recognition of only Jewish national rights in Palestine. At the same time, Britain and France negotiated the Northern border of Palestine, to, the East as well as the West of the Jordan River, on the basis of a Biblical atlas (remember Rueben, Gad and Menasheh). Incidentally, this included the Golan Heights in Palestine, but the area was ceded to Syria in 1923. The Mandate was granted to Britain in April 1920. Sir Alec Kirkbride, once Palestine District Commissioner and in 1946 the first Minister to the new Kingdom of Transjordan, wrote in his 1956 book , quote:- . . . At the time of the issue of this Mandate,there was no intention ... of forming the territory east o the River Jordan into an independent Arab State. The Turkish Peace Treaty was initialed by Turkey at Sevres in August 1920 but not ratified, as a result of Kemal Ataturk' overthrow of the Turkish Government. On December 6, 1920, the British, who had already approved the Mandate, submitted it to the League of Nations for ratification. It contained the Jewish National Home provisions without protecting the political rights of the Arab population, and it applied to both Cis-Jordania (Western Palestine) and Trans-Jordania (Eastern Palestine). By that time, the Emir Feisal had been driven out of Syria. A Syrian National Congress had elected Feisal King of Syria on March 11, 1920. That was too much for the French, who forced him out of Damascus in July 1920. In March 1921, a conference of senior British officials was convened in Cairo, chaired by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, in order to deal with the outstanding issues in the Middle East. In Mesopotamia (Iraq), where a rebellion had been going on for months, they installed Feisal as King. His older brother, Emir Abdullah, had come up into Trans-Jordan from the independent Hedjaz (which would be seized in 1924 by the Wahabi Ibn-Saud and become western Saudi Arabia). Abdullah threatened to rally local Bedouin tribes for an attack on the French in Syria. An idea was developed, supported by Britain's leading Arabist, Colonel T.E. Lawrence, who was at Cairo. It was to offer Abdullah the Governorship of the Trans-Jordanian Province of Palestine. In a wire to Prime Minister Lloyd George, Churchill stated that the solution would be the one insisted upon by the Prime Minister in a prior telegram, namely "while preserving Arab character of area and administration to treat it as Arab province or adjunct of Palestine." Churchill also stated that he expected Abdullah to refuse the Governorship because the territory was too small. Abdullah agreed to undertake the Governorship for six months, but he never left. Note the telegram's emphasis on continuing Trans-Jordan, Arab character and all, as part of Palestine. Preserving the Arab character of Trans-Jordan was counter to the Jewish National Home provisions of the Mandate for Palestine, not yet ratified by the Council of the League or Nations. So the Mandate for Palestine was amended by the British, principally by drafting a new Article 25 in April 1921. This was included in the Mandate ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922, which thereafter was never amended except by the British Government's Memorandum described below. A great error is made regarding Article 25 and Trans-Jordan. It is even made by Zionists. It is the view that in 1922 three-fourths of Palestine was given to the Arabs, and thereafter Palestine was limited to the area West of the Jordan River. The opening words of Article 25 disprove this statement: quote : In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, ...unquote. This proves that the land on both sides of the Jordan continued to be part of the Mandate for Palestine and that the eastern border of Trans-Jordan continued to be the eastern border or the Mandate. Article 25 allowed the British, with the consent of the Council of the League, to "postpone or withhold" but not to cancel application of certain provisions of the Mandate.[/B] On September 16, 1922, the Council approved a "Memorandum by the British Government relating to its application to Transjordan," and thereafter the quoted language was included in the Mandate's title. The Memorandum should always be read as part of the Mandate. Most copies of the Mandate unfortunately omit it. The Memorandum postponed or withheld application of the Jewish National Home provisions in "the Territory known as Transjordan, which comprises all territory lying to the East" from two miles West of Akaba on the Gulf of Akaba up the Jordan and Yarmuk
"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below. " Looks like the Jews adhered to the main portion but the Arabs did not. So, how many 'rules' were there in 181? Count them and then we can say that the Arabs broke every one of them as well as the UN Charter Article 2 which stipulates that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Looks like not only did the Arabs of Palestine violate every 'rule' in 181 but their rabid irrational hate filled buddies violated international law at the highest level. And yes, I got it now, you don't have a 'klew!'
Huh? I gave you a number of Arab atrocities and terror attacks, I could give you hundreds and hundreds more and you know that full well, just like you know that Palestinian arabs were murdering innocent Palestinian jews for decades....and yes the Jews occasionally retaliated as they should have. You don't seem to have any objections against the Arab "retaliation", do you? Nor you seem to have any issues with illegal arab invasions to wipe a UN member state off the map?
No problem. I am used to cherry-picking of historical sources. That is part of the reason that I am on this forum to expose them. Yes, we know all of that. Many thank for the reminder that the whole point of the Mandate was the establishment in the COUNTRY of PALESTINE of a homeland for the Jews. Your point is? Have you ever asked yourself how legal that was? Was it is perfect lock-step with the Covenant of the League of Nations? What I mean is, how does the allowing of neo-colonialism by a northern European group of lobbyists stack with
Reference please, because it is pure nonsense: MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! Your unreferenced unsupported claim is in full contradiction with your own evidence a few lines above as to what was stated in the verifiable wording of the Palestine Mandate: Do you have any --- VALID --- explanation for this utter contradiction? You have been caught out yet again, HBendor. Your quiver is also so empty that it doesn't even rattle.
Are you suggesting that Trans-Jordon should have remained as representing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" because of where Rueben, Gad and Menasheh resided for a short time? HBendor, your knowledge of the Middle East is astonishingly thin. Allow me to help you: 1) These three tibes did not want to go to the east bank of the Jordan HBendor, "the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead" was the land of Amorites, NOT Israelites. Reuben and Gad stole it from them. 2) But MUCH MORE importantly, what does this have to do with the bulk of Trans-Jordan? This land stolen by the Israelites makes up only 5% or Jordan. Why do you think, given real facts, that we would accept that, because that tiny green strip east of the Jordan river was oncre stolen from the ammonites by Israelites looking for pasture for their herds, the British should therefore have given the Jews the right to a "historic connection" to all of Jordan, including the vast high-altitude Bedouin desert? Come on, HB. Surely you realise by now that you cannot slip those illogical pieces of reasoning past us?
Here's a test of your knowledge, Drew: 1) What was the date "two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed"? Let me help you further: The final evacuation of the British forces was completed on 30th June 1948. Two months after that = 30th August 1948 ... right? 2) When did Israel declare independence? 14th May 1948 ... right? Many thanks, Drew, for yet another example of the illegality of Israel's declaration of Independence, a violation with absolute clarity of Resolution 181 which she had vowed to accept. So much for the word of the Zionist. Did I invent those FACTs, Drew? HB? When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Then show that the 14 examples represented Jewish "retaliation", instead of just saying so. That is underwhelming as evidence. Try starting with the invasion of Lebanon, the biggest of the Zionist aggressions. Contribute to the thread and show us how this was a retaliation. You have seen above that all that Drew can resort to is a minor event 11 months previously, to which the PLO reacted very strongly. It is not even worth a rattle in a quiver. Begin said the reason was the attempted assassination in London. Drew claims that he was mistaken. Next!!
Copied from an adjacent thread so as to remain on-topic. Drew returns to claiming that the PLO broke "the ceasefire" which he claims was not the Habib ceasefire. .... I know ... I have many. I have shown them to you ... all of them. You are fully aware of the entire collection. Each and every one. Yet ..... But I find it useful to collect all of my evidence in one place. It has a better inpact. What did you not understand about the Israeli government recognition of their understanding of the Habib ceasefire, Drew? Has The Global Jewish News Source also got it wrong, Drew? The US Library of Congress has it on record. Reputable US media knew about it. Israeli historians and the Israeli press knew about it. Military buffs know about the ceasefire and the PLO's observance of it. Authors on history knew about it. Not only one author knew about it; even the Israelis did. Even authors on international conflicts, authors as far away as India, were aware of Habib's cease-fire. Global think-tanks know about the Habib cease-fire. Still more authors knew about the Habib ceasefire. Even left-wing authors were aware of it. Oh, yes, before I forget about it, even the bad old UN in the form of the UNIFIL forces observing compliance with the Habib cease-fire and writing endless reports that the PLO was not initiating any violations; even they knew about it. - http://www.politicalforum.com/middl...-1982-zionists-deny-guilt.html#post1061913391 But, after having seen all of these, Drew continues to question the validity of this collection of referenced sources, and to doubt the well-established fact (looks upward) that it was the Habib cease-fire which was calming conflict on the Lebanon-Israel border. *SIGH* What do you call someone who causes these sorts of provocative disruptions?
Skip the games and obfuscation Klip, Israel is recognized by the world as a nation and country so is quite legal no matter what silly semantics you wish to play. A lie. Shame on you Klip, never once have you shown us these terms from the "Habib Ceasefire" and shame on you for wriggling away trying to rename this to be the "Habib Understanding" You don't have terms so we can just go to the UN version which any ceasefire would have had to follow in order to gain the approval of the UN and, as you painfully know, stated that the PLO was to cease attacking Israel which they did not.
It was always retaliation. It was retaliation to non-stop terror attacks in Palestine before the partition, the Arab terror started in early 20s and never stopped, it was a response to multiple arab invasions and wars when they set out to wipe Israel off the map, it was a response to Arab cross border terrorism, intifadas, Qassam attacks, Katyusha attacks, kidnappings, suicide bombings....
I repeat ...... You can't can you. So you are forced to become a broken record. Borat, doesn't it worry you that on this much-trumpeted Zionist position, you guys are incapable of refuting the facts. Just look at Drew's frantic wriggling, and HBendor's useless "No it wasn't" reply. Just like yours. Go on .... help Drew to "prove" that the PLO was not strictly and stubbornly observing the Habib ceasefire in 1982. Help Drew prove that the UNIFIL reports which show Israel to be the cross-border aggressor were lies. You guys have no ammunition left. Has the penny not started to drop yet with you three that the Zionist mantra of "Poor little Israel" is a load of BS?
