I would suggest you familiarize yourself with a little liberal concept called "tyranny of the majority". I might suggest you seek to understand one very common logical fallacy -- a fallacy called "argumentum ad populum". Just because a majority of people can express an opinion, such opinions are not necessarily valid. It is quite true that representatives of various non democratic states have enough muscle to seek to punish Jews wherever they can, but why you would place such unquestioning trust in such representatives is anybody's guess. The fact you do not even consider the source is quite evident, but for anybody else reading this thread, I might ask them to do so. Certainly, the Libyas, Irans, Cubas and Venezuelas of the world have political clout within the auspices of the U.N., but why defer to their opinion on ANY subject without so much as a singe question as to what they seek to accomplish?
And remember beletersi, the UN charter does not recognise the capturing of territory or land via the use of violence or force. Its irrelevant who started the 1967 war.
palestinians should just stop their whining. most palestinians are against attacks on israel because many work in israel and every time theres an attack theyre not allowed to work there anymore. and as for the whole "stealing of land" crap, they got it by buying it from the families that woned the land and had the palestinians stay uneducated so they would be cheap labor. it was like a serf and vassal system..
The USA is slowly becoming irrelevant. The USA is dying a slow death. Noone wished to invest in her anymore/ Nobody trusts her anymore And above all Nobody even likes her anymore. And the USA economy is about to nose dive even further. What a shame - the USA had so much promise - after WW2 the world DID actually look up to the USA - the land of freedom and liberty. An inspiration. Look now my friends! And everybody is armed too - wait till the (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan in the US. Maybe Washington can call on the UN for assistance hey?
So Foolo is 100% WRONG about Resolution 242 and has NO answer - and his other baseless charges of 'slaughter' by the IDF.
Lemme try to explain this for you, Lackluster. Those country representatives in the Security Council of the United Nations were NOT a minority. They were not some street corner rabble giving their personal opinions. They were part of a legally instituted body that the US has sworn to respect and to abide by its decisions. They were a clear majority of the most important council of the largest forum for international consensus on the planet. Now, if what you are in fact trying to say, is that the decisions of the SC of the UN are irrelevant to the US, then you must first explain why the US was so two-faced as to be a founder member and to vote to uphold the UN principals. You ask why I place such trust in the UN and its SC. I think that is obvious, but let me say it anyway - because it is the best forum for international debate, consensus and sanction. I know that it must be a bitter pill for the US to swallow when the vast majority of world opinion turns against it. It is like the schoolyard bully being challenged by the rest of the boys. He must hate it!! But that does not mean that the bully is right, reasoned, logical, correct or that he holds the moral high-ground. Remember freedom fries and the rest of the throwing of toys out the buggy? France DARED to even suggest a veto agains the US. Naturally, it doesnt matter that the US has vetoed France more than 80 times. So UNSC resolution 242 is not a case of a minority going against the reasoned wishes of the majority. If you believe that to be the case, Lackluster, then I presume that it is because you didn't like the results, and therefore the process is invalid. You just MUST be from the USA. Now, why to defer to the opinion of those members of the Security Council at the time of UNSC 242 - because the US signed a document saying that it would. Unless you suggest that Uncle Sam's word is worth zip. But then, you may have a point there. Oh, and finally, may I point out that the US was a member of the Security Council, and voted in favour of 242.
You can't buy country sovereignity by buying real estate, otherwise I could claim the kingdom of Klipkap on my plot of ground. I am amazed that this is even offered as a justification. In addition, even though not a valid route to statehood, how much of the current Israel was actually bought from previous owners, Beachbum. You say "they got it" - implying 100%. Are you sure of this?
(Laughs) That is exactly the type of thing that the school bully says when the vast majority of the pupils disagree with him. Sort of like what President Mugabe is now trying to say.
there is one very BIG BULLY running around in the world today. And if you dont hand over your resources to its private corporations you may get bombed with these smart bombs or perhaps they may even interfere with your political system and install tyranical fascist puppet regimes that will deal with its population and bend over to washington I wonder who this BIG BULLY is ??? In GOD we TRUST!
Actually very little Had to be 'Bought' since 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land and owned by NO Arab.. passing from the Ottomans to the British to The Jews. There was never a self-governing state on 'palestine' since it's was called ISRAEL... the first time. (renamed 'palestina' by the Romans, not Arabs, lol) So much for 'sovereignty'. After WWI, Many Countries were created that weren't 100% of one ethnicity or religion. The Kurds Sovereignty was given to a Saudi prince in Iraq. You never see much of an issue from the 'anti-zionists' here on that. Other 'Palestinians' didn't get sovereignty over 77% of the British Mandate that became Jordan (Palestine 1), as it was given to a Saudi Prince Abdullah, Great Grandfather of the Present Abdullah. These Saudi Princes, unlike the Jews, didn't live, and Hadn't settled in these countries for hundreds of Years as the Jews did in what became Israel.
No its more like program sponsorship, if we dont like the message of the programming perhaps we should pull our financing.
You already have - at least to a large degree -but you still want the UN Security Council veto rights, so you have to keep paying (some of) your "sponsorship". http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm What you are saying is that you will only sponsor what you like. That is reasonable. Problem is that it has nothing to do with sponsorship. Nothing whatsoever. You don't call the shots. You just pay your dues to be a member like everyone else. Small difference I know, but pertinent to your response This was all well debated in 1997. The US decided to continue paying rather that to lose it's Security Council right. Your choice. You stayed - as a member, not a sponsor.
Two small problems. First you are presuming that sovereignty is, has been, and should have been the western world's "country" concept. Unfortunately it is a flawed presumption. I don't want to tell you what to do, but you might like to web-search the age-old Fellaheen system of ground sharing that existed for millenia throughout the Middle East. For a dry legal view I refer to http://pnews.org/art/4art/LANDquestion.shtml Secondly you seem to believe that by holding a mere mandate, the British in fact had justified control over the destination of the included territory. Sure, I know that they acted as if they did, but in fact they had no such rights whatsoever. The British miserably abused their responsibilities by promising the same land to two different peoples during World War 1. One of those peoples had not controlled that land neither by occupation, nor by "country rights", nor by usage, for 2000 years. And I don't mean what are now called the Palestinians. But such is the nature of Myths. You shoot them down in flames and they rise again, like Peter Sellers in the movie The Party. This "land ownership" is one of the most famous of the many Zionist Myths that was blown clear out of the water on this very forum about a year ago. A very similar Myth also debated on this forum and was also shredded. The fact that there never was a Palestinian state is irrelevant when one refers to rights derived from another age and socio-political system. When Abraham arrived in Canaan - there were people living there. And they are still there. And they are not Hebrews. And they did not have a country or state. But those olive plantations where Jaffa oranges now grow had been tended by them since time immemorial. The Kurdish issue is indeed a huge tradgedy .... HUGE .... and I am gratified that you have noted the similarities to the Palestinian tradgedy. Just for the record, I do realise that there have been many Jewish tradgedies also. But my mother taught me to question all cases where 2 'wrongs' are proposed to make a 'right'. Seriously, if you are interested I will de-archive" these well-thrashed Myths for you.
YOU were the one who wre arguing "Bought" and owned.. thus my "2/3 was state land". Is there a point in there? Dioes it rebut mine that there hasn't been any self-governing 'palestine' (nor national Identity for that matter).. since it was called Israel This is not a Myth.. this is fact. Like everything I post and you try and obfuscate. Lastly, I saw your 'myth' strings and there's nothing in them but your CLAIM they are myths. Mere one or two sentence suppositions with No meat whatsoever. I don't believe I've ever seen such empty posting on this board or any other.
Beletesri - the above is your exact quote. So as to avoid vacant cross-purposes dialogue - what exactly was YOUR point? 1) To me it seems that you are saying that the 'annexation' of real estate for the creation of '1948 Israel' was fine because the bulk of the ground did not belong to Arabs. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me as to what you really meant. If I am correct, then my rebuttal stands. 2) What has the existence or not of the name Israel or Palestine to do with the price of eggs? If the people who lived there for the past 10 000 years decide one day to call ther new country Canaan or Palestine or something else, what difference would it make to ancestral rights? Does it matter that Namibia is no longer called German South West Africa or that that name never existed in past centuries? I really dont understand your point. 3) In your most recent contribution you imply, without any support whatsoever, that the Zionist Myth threads are simply claims with no substance. Let us take Myth 1 http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18606-zionist-myth-1-real-estate-equals-sovereignty.html mean. Let's test your recent opinion. Do Zionists claim that they never took any land from anyone? Do they claim that because ground was not owned by specific individuals, that it was fine to give it to someone else what had had no real control over it for more than 2700 years? If they do, then it is not just an empty claim - correct? It then remains to be seen whether it is a Myth or the real truth.
You quote me fully but take me out of context of responding to the previous discussion not "Bought". That WAS the previous discussion.. as to the new one: The whole Ottoman Empire was/Had to be Divided/"Annexed" into States. Some willy-nilly by the Brits. Jews/Jewish RESIDENTS had a valid claim to post-war (I and II) state as they had been promised before anyone thought up 'Iraq' or 'Jordan' or many other post-war states. Why is the creation of Israel, more nefariously described as 'annexation', any more problematic? Especially in light of the fact the Arabs were given 99% of the Ottoman Empire and 87% of the British mandate., inluding Jordan/aka Palestine 1. You also omit, as well as Jordan (70% 'Palestinian'), Resolution 181 also Created/"annexed" 'Palestine' (II) for the Arabs, Not Just an Israel. Nor did that creation entail the expulsion of any Arabs. That was the result of the War THEY Started. And unlike the other "Annexations" by the Brits (or French/French Mandate for 'Lebanon'), Israel was created by a Majority Vote of a World Body.. the UN. You keep copntradicting yourself - as to the necessity or fact of "taking" land. You allow that they "Bought" it legally.. allow that "Arabs didn't own it", but then claim it was "Taken".
Let's do the "valid" bit first: # Did the British make similar promises to Arab peoples including the same ground which is now occupied by Israel? Before/after/does it matter - the promise to the foreigners? # More importantly, what right did Britain, who only held a mandate to govern on behalf of the resident peoples (exact reference available), have to promise these people's ancestral ground to a foreign third party group who had no significant presence in the area for almost 2000 years (in other words I am questioning the legal validity of that promise to certain representatives of international Jewry)? # Validity of the two promises? [of course we all know what happened historically. You were talking about validity. I am more interested in justice] 1) You ask why there is a difference between the creation of Jordan and that of Israel? Well, Jordan was ultimately given to a people who had been living there for over 10 000 years. Israel was given to people who hadnt lived there for almost 2000 years in defiance of the rights of those who had. See the difference? 2) Where did you get the statistic that 99% of the Ottoman empire was given to the Arabs? Reference please. 3) Are you saying that because the Jews only got a small percentage of the entire Ottoman empire, that the promise is therefore valid? Like if the front corner of your plot was given to an Indigenous American family is OK and legal, because the Local City Admin feels guilty because of an Iriquois pogrom only 150 years ago? Same problem as above - I didnt omit it; it is simply not relevant to our discussion of the creation of the State of Israel. You cannot call giving land to people who have occupied it for dozens of millennia annexation. With the creation of Jordan that land remained in the hands of a people who had always lived there. With the creation of the State of Israel, that land was taken away from them and given to someone else. See the difference? I allow no such thing. I allow that Jews bought parcels of real estate legally. But to conclude from that that the creation of the State of Israel was legal and fully respected the rights of the ancestral residents, that I do NOT agree to. You are correct about the United Nations. At the time it was a very immature organisation PLUS, the West was suffering collective guilt over the holocaust tragedy. Does this make the decision just? So here is my bottom line Injustice to the ancestral residents or not, turning back the clock to 1917 or 1948 is not practical nor just towards the Jewish people. But this does NOT mean that it was just and fair towards the historical residents who are now called Palestinans. Therefore, given this debacle of land alienation based on collective guilt more than on any established international legal norms, given that they lost very important territory because a bunch of third parties gave away their ground to provide a home for foreigners who lives on other continents, should these ancestral residents who had nothing to do with the Holocaust be subjected to yet further injustices? And THAT is where we neatly link back to the theme of this thread UNSC resolution 242. Capiche?
If you would look into another past/recent string just a few down the page: "Who lived there when".. and see post #4 It rather defeats everything you had to say Further, many of the Arabs now called 'Palestinians' (you gotta love these new made up names for arabs from Egypt to Iraq) were as new or NewER than the Jewish residents- having FOLLOWED in the zionist settlers for 50+ years) for the economic opportunity they created. Just as Today Tens of Thousands Flock to Israel Daily for Jobs.. at least before the intifada.. and even since do. "One always finds in Palestine Arabs who have been in the country only a few weeks or a few months...Since they are themselves strangers in a strange land, they are the loudest to cry: 'Out with the Jews!...Amongst them are to be found representatives of every Arab country: Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan and Iraq." Ladislas Farago, Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Putnam 1937) p17
well done klipkap - <<<Off-topic>>> <<<Personal Attacks Removed>>> Regards Foolosophy Premier Genius and All round nice guy that speaks the truth
Wrong Beletesri. It says nothing - Abu just makes personal attacks. On two or three of the Zionist Myth threads Ashley ate Abu for breakfast, because she DID use facts. Poor Abu tried to extrapolate population statistics for Jerusalem as if they applied to the entire disputed Levant region. She shot him down sooooooo badly. Well done Beletesri - you have confirmed the cardinal rule of Zionist Myths. No matter how thoroughly they are debunked, they pop up a short while later as if they are the pure truth. What you stated above is Zionist Myth number 2. Originally I paraphrased this Myth by collating comments from various Zionist web sites as: QUOTE Zionist Myth 2: The formation of the State of Israel did not displace Palestinian people. The vast majority of the Palestinians in the southern Levant arrived there by immigration from surrounding areas about a century ago, following the hard-working Zionists. When Israel was formed they were only required to go back to whence they came from. UNQUOTE I hope that you will agree that this says pretty much what you do just using different words. Unfortunately the Myth 2 thread has been corrupted. Here is what remains of it, thankfully retaining the core discussions: http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/18706-myth-no-2-a.html Feel free to re-open the case. I still have the Excel spreadsheet with the various data sets for the various population groups. The Joan Peters debate again, anyone?
Wrong again kipklap. Actually abu gives population Data back to 1838.. when Jews were already the Largest constituent of the population in place like Jerusalem (Safed, etc). And states the reason for the post is not to say Jews were a majority in the Mandate or lesser palestine (what is now 'palestine' and Israel), but that Jews were in good enough number to justify "the tiny sliver of the Ottoman empire they got". And I referred to it in that light as to these so-called/kip-kalled "annexations" to show the Jews indeed had cause for a state. Nor could or did you rebut Most else I said-- just Leaving it out and selectively 'replying'. "Re-open" what case. You didn't make any. LOL Once again we have kilpklap referring/declaring SO-CALLED 'Myths', when he has no proof they are myths.. Referring us only to his own previous EMPTY one-sentence strings declaring they are myths. That's not even circular reasoning- that's Double-nothing reasoning.
Beletesri, you have now twice accused me of having invented Myth 2, namely that one of the main Zionist mantras is that the Palestinians followed the Jews into the disputed southern Levant and cannot therefore claim to have been displaced when the State of Israel was created. I dont like it when people accuse me of dishonest debate, so I am now throwing down the gauntlet to you. Tell me and the readers of this section of the forum that this is NOT a regular theme in Zionist publications and web sites, and that I have invented it. Or, if on the other hand, your contention is that indeed such Zionist sources DO frequently make this claim, but that it is NOT a myth, but is the plain truth, then start to show your evidence, instead of vacantly implying that I am lying. I will naturally respond. So go for it. It it a Zionist mantra or not, and if so, what is your evidence that it is true? Time to back up your insults.
No insults in any posts above..tho you feel such from the thrashing with facts. Not how Klipkap tries to Slide from the point we were talking about.. the Validity of the creation of Israel. Now lost by him. That creation was as/or more valid of any of the former Ottoman lands. and he has tried to morph it into what? Some vague claimed 'Myth'. I keep posting hard facts- he wants to push them all into some 'myth' bucket rather than debate any I have given. The fact is some Arabs were there, some/many certainly followed the Zionists in.. The Population of Both, especially Arabs, increased dramatically (those you claim were displaced!) But I don't see "Displacement" of any significance (there's always a little in statecraft as there was throughout the former Ottoman lands), aside from the Displacement that was a Result of the Arab-Started 1948 War, NOT the creation/partition of Israel/Palestine. Another Truth Klipkap can't make a myth. "Taken", "Bought", "annexed", "Sovereignty"... all self-contradicted and/or Lost by klipkap on this page alone!.. now on to... "Displaced". And deluded/obsessive reference to 'Myths'. LOL
