Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Israel-Palestine confict summary

Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:15:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems to be broadly accurate, it could have done with a little more detail.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:19:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:15:46 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It seems to be broadly accurate, it could have done with a little more detail.

Well if you look, it gives a reference to a more detailed summary of it. ( "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict.")
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:34:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

Everyone hates hat Muslims, even other Muslims, look at them lording it over us with their hats.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:40:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:34:49 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hate Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

Everyone hates hat Muslims, even other Muslims, look at them lording it over us with their hats.

lol, fixed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 11:54:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

I would most likely support the Muslims. I think it all comes down to a matter of which do I hate more.. and I do indeed dislike Jews more, so that would leave me to supporting the Muslims.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2011 12:32:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:54:57 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

I would most likely support the Muslims. I think it all comes down to a matter of which do I hate more.. and I do indeed dislike Jews more, so that would leave me to supporting the Muslims.

Well of course the Nazis allied with both at some point, but ultimately sided with the Muslims.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2011 12:04:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:54:57 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

I would most likely support the Muslims. I think it all comes down to a matter of which do I hate more.. and I do indeed dislike Jews more, so that would leave me to supporting the Muslims.

A big majority of muslims aren't white though. O.o

As for the OP, that site does a decent job of outlining zionist atrocities.
Calvincambridge
Posts: 1,141
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 9:57:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:54:57 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:27:11 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:13:58 AM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

The summary is correct. It highlights the very real dangers of Zionism. As to your other question, how can you not see that it is biased? lol

Just curious, if you hate Jews and hat Muslims, what side do you take on this conflict?

I would most likely support the Muslims. I think it all comes down to a matter of which do I hate more.. and I do indeed dislike Jews more, so that would leave me to supporting the Muslims.

I like Jews very much and study hebrew.
Trying to figure out women is like trying to solve a Rubik's cube with missing pieces. While blind. And on fire. And being shot.-Agent_Orange
Dude. Shades
That is all.- Thaddeus Rivers
One thing that isn't a joke though is the fact that woman are computers.Some buttons you can press and it'l work fine, but if you push the wrong one you'll get the blue screen of death.
silly, thett. girls are only good for sex. being friends with a female is of no value.-darkkermit
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 12:51:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 9:57:22 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:

I like Jews very much and study hebrew.

I also want to learn Hebrew so I can read the Torah in its original language. I also want to improve my Arabic so I can read the Qur'an in Arabic.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 1:38:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 12:51:42 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:57:22 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:

I like Jews very much and study hebrew.

I also want to learn Hebrew so I can read the Torah in its original language. I also want to improve my Arabic so I can read the Qur'an in Arabic.

You can also learn Sanskrit so that you can read the Bhagvad Gita in the original.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 6:48:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 1:38:11 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/25/2011 12:51:42 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 9/24/2011 9:57:22 PM, Calvincambridge wrote:

I like Jews very much and study hebrew.

I also want to learn Hebrew so I can read the Torah in its original language. I also want to improve my Arabic so I can read the Qur'an in Arabic.

You can also learn Sanskrit so that you can read the Bhagvad Gita in the original.

lol yea. I really do want to read all religious texts in their original languages since that way you would get the most out of them. Seems like an impossible goal though. :/
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 12:19:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

No. As a result of World War One the Ottoman Empire was divided up, resulting in Ottoman Syria being split between Turkey, the British Mandate for Palestine, and the French Mandate of Syria.

The British Mandate for Palestine's preamble specifically stated that, "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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920, 28 years later the goal of the Mandate was achieved when Israel declared independence in 1948.
This lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when several Arab nations invaded the Former British Mandate for Palestine. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Because it was just a ceasefire peace did not last, and after years of conflict the State of Palestine declared independence in 1988.

The declaration of the State of Palestine concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This of course causes conflict with Israel.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 7:08:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 12:19:33 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

No. As a result of World War One the Ottoman Empire was divided up, resulting in Ottoman Syria being split between Turkey, the British Mandate for Palestine, and the French Mandate of Syria.

The British Mandate for Palestine's preamble specifically stated that, "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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920, 28 years later the goal of the Mandate was achieved when Israel declared independence in 1948.

Woah hold on there! How did that achieve the goal of the mandate? The Balfour declaration is pretty clear, it calls for a national home, not a nation state, so long as this does not impinge on the rights of the natives.

This lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when several Arab nations invaded the Former British Mandate for Palestine. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Because it was just a ceasefire peace did not last, and after years of conflict the State of Palestine declared independence in 1988.

The declaration of the State of Palestine concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This of course causes conflict with Israel.

Hence of course the two state solution, overly generous to the Israelies when you think about it.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 7:21:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 7:08:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/26/2011 12:19:33 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

No. As a result of World War One the Ottoman Empire was divided up, resulting in Ottoman Syria being split between Turkey, the British Mandate for Palestine, and the French Mandate of Syria.

The British Mandate for Palestine's preamble specifically stated that, "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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920, 28 years later the goal of the Mandate was achieved when Israel declared independence in 1948.

Woah hold on there! How did that achieve the goal of the mandate? The Balfour declaration is pretty clear, it calls for a national home, not a nation state, so long as this does not impinge on the rights of the natives.

This lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when several Arab nations invaded the Former British Mandate for Palestine. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Because it was just a ceasefire peace did not last, and after years of conflict the State of Palestine declared independence in 1988.

The declaration of the State of Palestine concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This of course causes conflict with Israel.

Hence of course the two state solution, overly generous to the Israelies when you think about it.

They didn't infringe on the rights of the Natives. Israel allows for Freedom of Religion, according a report by the US Department of State "The Israeli Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty provides for freedom of worship and the Government generally respected this right in practice." and that "Many Jewish citizens objected to exclusive Orthodox control over fundamental aspects of their personal lives."

For example the Dome of the Rock is on Israel Land, yet it remains a Muslim sanctuary, even though Israel has the legal right to rebuild the Temple of Solomon where it stands.

Israel allows the practice of Islam, and Christianity even though it is a Jewish State, and Israel guarantees Muslim access to mosques, and Christians access to churches.

The Israel Defense Forces even stopped an attempt by the Kach party to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israel not only allows freedom to practice Islam but the Israeli Government also helps fund Islamic religious activities, which they don't even do for Protestants.

And the creation of the state of Israel did fulfill the purpose of the Mandate

(adj) national (of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country)
(n) nation (a politically organized body of people under a single government)
(n) country (the territory occupied by a nation)
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)

According to Article 2 of the British Mandate;

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment (the act of forming or establishing something) of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development (act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining) of self-governing ((of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces) institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 5:45:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 7:21:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/26/2011 7:08:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/26/2011 12:19:33 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

No. As a result of World War One the Ottoman Empire was divided up, resulting in Ottoman Syria being split between Turkey, the British Mandate for Palestine, and the French Mandate of Syria.

The British Mandate for Palestine's preamble specifically stated that, "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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920, 28 years later the goal of the Mandate was achieved when Israel declared independence in 1948.

Woah hold on there! How did that achieve the goal of the mandate? The Balfour declaration is pretty clear, it calls for a national home, not a nation state, so long as this does not impinge on the rights of the natives.

This lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when several Arab nations invaded the Former British Mandate for Palestine. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Because it was just a ceasefire peace did not last, and after years of conflict the State of Palestine declared independence in 1988.

The declaration of the State of Palestine concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This of course causes conflict with Israel.

Hence of course the two state solution, overly generous to the Israelies when you think about it.

They didn't infringe on the rights of the Natives.

Yes it bloody did, being annexed into a foreign nation is an infringement on your rights.

Israel allows for Freedom of Religion, according a report by the US Department of State "The Israeli Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty provides for freedom of worship and the Government generally respected this right in practice." and that "Many Jewish citizens objected to exclusive Orthodox control over fundamental aspects of their personal lives."


It does, but again having your homeland stolen is not having your rights honoured.

For example the Dome of the Rock is on Israel Land, yet it remains a Muslim sanctuary, even though Israel has the legal right to rebuild the Temple of Solomon where it stands.

Exactly, it is on Israeli land, how so... oh due to war, conquest and ethnic cleansing?


Israel allows the practice of Islam, and Christianity even though it is a Jewish State, and Israel guarantees Muslim access to mosques, and Christians access to churches.

The Israel Defense Forces even stopped an attempt by the Kach party to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israel not only allows freedom to practice Islam but the Israeli Government also helps fund Islamic religious activities, which they don't even do for Protestants.

And the creation of the state of Israel did fulfill the purpose of the Mandate

No it violated it.


(adj) national (of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country)
(n) nation (a politically organized body of people under a single government)
(n) country (the territory occupied by a nation)
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)

According to Article 2 of the British Mandate;

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment (the act of forming or establishing something) of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development (act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining) of self-governing ((of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces) institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 12:34:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 5:45:34 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/26/2011 7:21:53 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/26/2011 7:08:11 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/26/2011 12:19:33 AM, DanT wrote:
At 9/22/2011 11:08:10 AM, Indophile wrote:
http://ifamericansknew.org...

Is this short summary correct? Is it biased in any way?

No. As a result of World War One the Ottoman Empire was divided up, resulting in Ottoman Syria being split between Turkey, the British Mandate for Palestine, and the French Mandate of Syria.

The British Mandate for Palestine's preamble specifically stated that, "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 favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people"

The British Mandate for Palestine was created in 1920, 28 years later the goal of the Mandate was achieved when Israel declared independence in 1948.

Woah hold on there! How did that achieve the goal of the mandate? The Balfour declaration is pretty clear, it calls for a national home, not a nation state, so long as this does not impinge on the rights of the natives.

This lead to the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, when several Arab nations invaded the Former British Mandate for Palestine. The war concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Because it was just a ceasefire peace did not last, and after years of conflict the State of Palestine declared independence in 1988.

The declaration of the State of Palestine concerns the Palestine region, as defined by the British Mandate of Palestine, which includes the whole of Israel as well as the West Bank and the Gaza strip. This of course causes conflict with Israel.

Hence of course the two state solution, overly generous to the Israelies when you think about it.

They didn't infringe on the rights of the Natives.

Yes it bloody did, being annexed into a foreign nation is an infringement on your rights.

Israel allows for Freedom of Religion, according a report by the US Department of State "The Israeli Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty provides for freedom of worship and the Government generally respected this right in practice." and that "Many Jewish citizens objected to exclusive Orthodox control over fundamental aspects of their personal lives."


It does, but again having your homeland stolen is not having your rights honoured.

For example the Dome of the Rock is on Israel Land, yet it remains a Muslim sanctuary, even though Israel has the legal right to rebuild the Temple of Solomon where it stands.

Exactly, it is on Israeli land, how so... oh due to war, conquest and ethnic cleansing?


Israel allows the practice of Islam, and Christianity even though it is a Jewish State, and Israel guarantees Muslim access to mosques, and Christians access to churches.

The Israel Defense Forces even stopped an attempt by the Kach party to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Israel not only allows freedom to practice Islam but the Israeli Government also helps fund Islamic religious activities, which they don't even do for Protestants.

And the creation of the state of Israel did fulfill the purpose of the Mandate

No it violated it.


(adj) national (of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country)
(n) nation (a politically organized body of people under a single government)
(n) country (the territory occupied by a nation)
(http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...)

According to Article 2 of the British Mandate;

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment (the act of forming or establishing something) of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development (act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining) of self-governing ((of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces) institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Amazing how I am capable of providing examples but you are not...

When exactly did they annexed a foreign nation?
As I stated before Israel Declared independence in 1948, the UN recognized them the next day, and just hours after they was recognized by the UN the Arab League invaded, starting the 1st phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
When the 1st ceasefire took place Israel was left with a geographic strategic disadvantage. Israel than broke the Ceasefire (not a end to the war), in order to secure their boarder defenses, this marked the second phase of the war. March 1949, the 1949 Armistice Agreements was adopted, officially ending the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements drew ceasefire lines, but not official borders.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements was broken 39 times by Jordan, and 33 times by Israel, according to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan/Israel Mixed Armistice Commission.

The State of Palestine was a creation of the Arab League.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:27:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 12:34:46 PM, DanT wrote:

Amazing how I am capable of providing examples but you are not...

I am using your examples against you...

When exactly did they annexed a foreign nation?
As I stated before Israel Declared independence in 1948,

There you go.
Arabs living in their homeland, suddenly found themselves citizens of a Jewish state set up specifically for Jews. A violation of their basic rights, and a violation of international law which supports national self-determination.

the UN recognized them the next day, and just hours after they was recognized by the UN the Arab League invaded, starting the 1st phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Annexing territory does sometimes lead to war yes, even if the UN approves of the conquest in violation of it's own charter it might still upset people.

When the 1st ceasefire took place Israel was left with a geographic strategic disadvantage. Israel than broke the Ceasefire (not a end to the war), in order to secure their boarder defenses, this marked the second phase of the war. March 1949, the 1949 Armistice Agreements was adopted, officially ending the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements drew ceasefire lines, but not official borders.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements was broken 39 times by Jordan, and 33 times by Israel, according to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan/Israel Mixed Armistice Commission.

The State of Palestine was a creation of the Arab League.

And?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:42:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

Out of the 20 million or so Native Americans who lived in the territory we now know as the U.S., how many do you think died from disease and how many do you think died by U.S. bullets?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:45:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

What is this mandate of which you speak?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:50:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:42:35 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

Out of the 20 million or so Native Americans who lived in the territory we now know as the U.S., how many do you think died from disease and how many do you think died by U.S. bullets?

You mean the smallpox blankets and such that the British military handed out? The cramped and disease-friendly conditions the missionaries created before that? Probably around 80% of fatalities.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:52:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:45:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

What is this mandate of which you speak?

Balfour, IIRC, was condoned by several western countries.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 1:52:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:50:01 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:42:35 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

Out of the 20 million or so Native Americans who lived in the territory we now know as the U.S., how many do you think died from disease and how many do you think died by U.S. bullets?

You mean the smallpox blankets and such that the British military handed out?

I can only find one incident of that, it involved a couple of blankets in the middle of a siege and had questionable effect if any, unless you have more recorded incidents.

The cramped and disease-friendly conditions the missionaries created before that? Probably around 80% of fatalities.

Where and how many?
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:03:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:52:01 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:45:46 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:40:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
Israel: Established with an international mandate specifying how transfer of power will occur with the natives.

America: Established via genocide.

Which would you call more legitimate?

What is this mandate of which you speak?

Balfour, IIRC, was condoned by several western countries.

Neither the British mandate of Palestine nor the Balfour declaration ever stated that power would be transferred to a Jewish state. Like the Jews before you have taken ambivalent and cowardly British foreign policy and read you wanted into it.

A literal reading, in the light of the League of Nations and the the United Nations own rules suggests commitment to the eventual creation of an arab state called Palestine with a protected Jewish minority.

Though it is more likely Britain had no idea what it was doing.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 2:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 1:27:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2011 12:34:46 PM, DanT wrote:

Amazing how I am capable of providing examples but you are not...

I am using your examples against you...

When exactly did they annexed a foreign nation?
As I stated before Israel Declared independence in 1948,

There you go.
Arabs living in their homeland, suddenly found themselves citizens of a Jewish state set up specifically for Jews. A violation of their basic rights, and a violation of international law which supports national self-determination.

As I stated before the UN recognized the in a day.


the UN recognized them the next day, and just hours after they was recognized by the UN the Arab League invaded, starting the 1st phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Annexing territory does sometimes lead to war yes, even if the UN approves of the conquest in violation of it's own charter it might still upset people.

Jews lived there too, it wasn't just Muslim.
The Emirate of Transjordan also sprung from the British Mandate in 1921, why not condemn them?
At what point this does this become antisemitism, or Islamic favoritism?
So far all I have heard is attacks on Israel, I have not heard any argument that supports the establishment of the State of Palestine.

Israel is a Sovereign Nation, and Palestine wants to take Israel.

How Does the state of Palestine comply with the intent of the British Mandate? It doesn't!

When America declared independence a majority of colonists was loyalists, and considered themselves British. Does that mean the US doesn't have a right to exist?


When the 1st ceasefire took place Israel was left with a geographic strategic disadvantage. Israel than broke the Ceasefire (not a end to the war), in order to secure their boarder defenses, this marked the second phase of the war. March 1949, the 1949 Armistice Agreements was adopted, officially ending the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements drew ceasefire lines, but not official borders.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements was broken 39 times by Jordan, and 33 times by Israel, according to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan/Israel Mixed Armistice Commission.

The State of Palestine was a creation of the Arab League.

And?

And the War was started by the Arab League, who invaded a Sovereign Nation.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements did not draw an official border, it ceasefire lines.

Also Prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Arabs was hostile towards Jewish communities.

The first outbreak of hostilities began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. within a month British was forced to turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion, because so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.

Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq each invaded Israel as soon as it was recognized.

Also the unrecognized All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Arab-Palestinian Congress called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

King Abdullah I of Transjordan, shortly after announced his intention to annex the West Bank.

The All-Palestine Government ended in 1957 with Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt.

which was a result of the The 1956 Suez War, between Egypt and Israel, which started because of an Egyptian Blockade violating the Suez Canal Convention of 1888.

The Six-Day War in 1967 also started because Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran and cut off Israeli shipping.

Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in March, 1979
Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in October, 1994
King Hussein expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization from Jordan in 1970

In December 1987 mass uprisings began by Hamas, PLO, PFLP, and Palestinian dissidents began in Israel marking the 1st Intifada

In September of 2000 the Second Intifada took place, caused by Islamic Jihadists, Hamas, Fatah, PLO, PFLP, and DFLP.

Israel has only acted in Self Defense, and has a right to exist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2011 3:08:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/27/2011 2:45:07 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/27/2011 1:27:07 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/27/2011 12:34:46 PM, DanT wrote:

Amazing how I am capable of providing examples but you are not...

I am using your examples against you...

When exactly did they annexed a foreign nation?
As I stated before Israel Declared independence in 1948,

There you go.
Arabs living in their homeland, suddenly found themselves citizens of a Jewish state set up specifically for Jews. A violation of their basic rights, and a violation of international law which supports national self-determination.

As I stated before the UN recognized the in a day.

And?

the UN recognized them the next day, and just hours after they was recognized by the UN the Arab League invaded, starting the 1st phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

Annexing territory does sometimes lead to war yes, even if the UN approves of the conquest in violation of it's own charter it might still upset people.

Jews lived there too, it wasn't just Muslim.

Yes, but thank you for acknowledging that Muslims lived there at all.

The Emirate of Transjordan also sprung from the British Mandate in 1921, why not condemn them?

Because that is consistent with national self-determination.

At what point this does this become antisemitism, or Islamic favoritism?

Irrelevant, I was hoping we could avoid such childishness.

So far all I have heard is attacks on Israel, I have not heard any argument that supports the establishment of the State of Palestine.

The people living there want it... national self-determination has been part of international law for a long time.

Israel is a Sovereign Nation, and Palestine wants to take Israel.

Some Palestinians may want that, others are living in the real world and simply want a tiny fraction of a whole pie that actually should be entirely theirs.

How Does the state of Palestine comply with the intent of the British Mandate? It doesn't!

It defines itself as a multicultural state, so yes it actually does.

When America declared independence a majority of colonists was loyalists, and considered themselves British. Does that mean the US doesn't have a right to exist?

No it means it did not have a right to secede.

When the 1st ceasefire took place Israel was left with a geographic strategic disadvantage. Israel than broke the Ceasefire (not a end to the war), in order to secure their boarder defenses, this marked the second phase of the war. March 1949, the 1949 Armistice Agreements was adopted, officially ending the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements drew ceasefire lines, but not official borders.

The 1949 Armistice Agreements was broken 39 times by Jordan, and 33 times by Israel, according to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan/Israel Mixed Armistice Commission.

The State of Palestine was a creation of the Arab League.

And?

And the War was started by the Arab League, who invaded a Sovereign Nation.

And?
I dont see how that effects anything?

The 1949 Armistice Agreements did not draw an official border, it ceasefire lines.

Also Prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, Arabs was hostile towards Jewish communities.

Well they would be hostile to armed illegal immigrants with a stated policy of conquest.

The first outbreak of hostilities began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. within a month British was forced to turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion, because so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.

Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq each invaded Israel as soon as it was recognized.

Also the unrecognized All-Palestine Government established by the Arab League on 22 September 1948, during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Arab-Palestinian Congress called for the union of Arab Palestine and Transjordan.

King Abdullah I of Transjordan, shortly after announced his intention to annex the West Bank.

The All-Palestine Government ended in 1957 with Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt.

which was a result of the The 1956 Suez War, between Egypt and Israel, which started because of an Egyptian Blockade violating the Suez Canal Convention of 1888.

The Six-Day War in 1967 also started because Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran and cut off Israeli shipping.

Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in March, 1979
Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in October, 1994
King Hussein expelled the Palestine Liberation Organization from Jordan in 1970

In December 1987 mass uprisings began by Hamas, PLO, PFLP, and Palestinian dissidents began in Israel marking the 1st Intifada

In September of 2000 the Second Intifada took place, caused by Islamic Jihadists, Hamas, Fatah, PLO, PFLP, and DFLP.

Israel has only acted in Self Defense, and has a right to exist.

Why have you posted so much irrelevant waffle?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.