Breaking news - Arab's greatest fear "Sharon" is dead.

Plan Dalet was a pragmatic plan, hardly worthy of being called military genius since it was driven by tactical considerations and experience garnered from a few years of civil war.

You might want to read the plan again. In those days it wasn't called ethnic cleansing to destroy a village and expel its population. Today it is. Live with it cause its the truth.

 

I would agree, except that most, if not all, of that material was MY OWN RESEARCH. So I guess I am cheating myself. Pssst, why do you think I told you to google it?

 

Rubbish. China is ready to fill any gaps. Russia too. North America is 17 TRILLION dollars in debt.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, so you're now a public purveyor of bullcrap. That didn't take very long to determine.

 

WRONG : I suppose you haven't got the foggiest idea of the reasons why PALESTINIAN reacted as they did , do you.

To every action there;s a REACTION. Non-Jewish Palestinian reacted as they did , AFTER learning abt ZIONIST plans . AFTER learning abt Herzl's DER JUDENSTAAT. Ronstar, there really no doubt in my mind that Palestinians - in general (like most Arabs /Arabized people- Christian + Muslim) are amongst the most hospitable of people. Arabs was without doubt . AT FIRST, very friendly towards those they viewed , as their cousins , but soon learnt that European AshkeNazi Jews was not the same as Sephardim/Mizrahim + other Arabized Jews . ZioNazi came with plans to hi-jack Judaism + the name "Israel" to establish Herzl's heretical ZioNazi DER JUDENSTAAT .



....................

 

Legitimate targets then. Good.

 

Go read the preceding post - the post I was responding to .

.

 

Do you have any idea how much of the UN budget is supported by US money?

The U.S. pays 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget and also support many other UN programs to the tune of big bucks.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting that because I only use text references I am somehow missing out of some "true" statements?

 

Yet that determination has yet to take place.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no legitimate targets in an occupied territory, and those who choose to target the occupiers do two things; make the occupation last longer, and getting more of the terrorists killed in the process.

 

In case anyone forget:

How did Israel get it's land? http://www.carasso.com/israel/land.html

"At the end of World War I, some of Palestine's land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80% of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins.
Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1937 show that 73% of Jewish plots were purchases from large landowners, not poor fellahin."
--The Peel Commission (1937)

"The Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when purchased...there was at the time at least of earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land. Jews paid more than $20 million at 1936 rates) to Arab landowners, mostly estate holders."
"In 1944, Jews paid between $1000 and $1100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semi-arid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture)"
--Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948

According to British government statistics, prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, 8.6% of the land area now known as Israel was owned by Jews; 3.3% by Arabs who remained there; 16.5% by Arabs who left the country. More than 70% of the land was owned by the British Government. (Ottoman Empire land reverted to GB) Under international law, ownership passed to Israel in 1948. The public lands included most of the Negev Desert --half of Palestine's post-1922 total area
--Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Mandate Government

Further UN estimates put the property loses of Jews kicked out of Arab countries after 1948 at 10 times those lost by Palestinian Arabs.
Most Jews in Israel are from Arab countries, not Europe. So the issue of the injustice done TO the Jews of Arab countries BY Arabs is relevant, as are reparations. Not all Jews are white New Yorkers. 60% of Jews are not what you might call Caucasian.

All the way up until 1970 Israel had a policy of repayment or replacement for anyone who could prove his claim. I believe 10% of the refugees used this policy, while others refused.

From 1920 to 1948 Jewish organizations accepted partition plans that gave the Jewish state as little as 20% of the current state of Israel. The Arabs refused.

From the 1850's to 1948, 90% of the land Jews lived on was purchased at high prices from Arabs. The rest was uninhabited land and passed from the British government to the Israeli government, under international law.

In 1948, any Arab that stayed in Israel became Israeli citizens with full rights to vote, form political parties, etc. Most fled, anticipating that the Arab armies would quickly defeat Israel, and they could return home, without being thought of as traitors. Now whose fault is it for leaving?

In 1948 at the creation of the State of Israel, Jews from all the Arab countries were forced out or harassed. The land lost by Jews who fled was estimated by the UN to be worth 10X's that of any property lost by Arabs who fled Israel in 1948. When will they be reimbursed?

In 1948 Jordan expanded its borders and stole the West Bank, a piece that was never part of its borders. In 1967, Israel took it back as a buffer from the combined half a dozen Arab armies that were poised to attack the lone Jewish state. It was expected that Arab states would make peace and Israel would return the land within a few months. The Arab states refused to negotiate with Israel.

 

The Peel Commission found the shortage was "due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine contributed to an improved standard of living, notably higher wages, and ample employment opportunities.

British government statistics prior to the establishment of the State of Israel concluded that 8.6% of the land area now known as Israel was owned by Jews; 3.3% by Arabs who remained there; 16.5% by Arabs who left the country. More than 70% of the land was owned by the British Government. Under international law, ownership passed to Israel in 1948. The public lands included most of the Negev Desert - half of Palestine's post-1922 total area.
Source: Survey of Palestine, 1946, British Mandate Government

 

What text references ?


Do you deny saying

" BTW, I do not have a graphics card which will play videos with sound. "

in post #429 ? - ??????


==========

( I'm tired , its near time for hot cocoa + off to bed.)

G'nite ......

 

Obviously law is not conditional. Countries and their people who support only viewing law as ok if it is on their side are clearly not law abiding. They are countries with no moral standing which say 'do as I say, not as I do'.

The UK however must go by the rule of law having not opted out.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-into-uk-role-in-iraq-war-crimes-9054651.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/29/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war-new-year

 

I trust you are aware that 'outposts' are illegal even according to Israel. You're just underlining your extremist position. Was listening to someone speaking of Sharon today. He said his intention was to make a two state solution impossible. That guy thought he had probably achieved that. If so Israel will need to take the consequences.

 

No, psychotically choosing to unnecessarily kill civilians. You have already made your position clear as being in favour of such.

 

I am holding in my hand a Palestinian 2 Mils coin dated 1927. The writing on it is in Arabic, Hebrew and English.

 

Tell that to the Jews and ethnic Poles who were under Nazi occupation, or the French resistance...
I've read some rubbish in my time, but this is close to the finest example of the genre.

 

those were illegal occupations.

 

As is Israel's. UN Resolution 242; "emphasising the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory gained through war..."
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

 

No, they are not. I said hostile foreign occupations.

For a start, the allies did not build settlements in Germany or Japan for allied civilian settlers, forcing the indigenous Germans or Japanese from their land. German and Japanese civilians were ultimately governed by their own respective governments, rather than by the allies.

Occupying their countries after the war benefited their security from hostile foreign invasions, in addition to being forward outposts for our own military forces. Importantly though, the German and Japanese governments agreed, just as the British government agrees to have US forces stationed in the UK.

The Palestinians most certainly do not agree to live under Israeli occupation. That is why the Israeli occupation is ''hostile,'' whereas the examples you provided are not.

So, do I take it you cannot cite even one instance of a hostile foreign occupation, where the population living under occupation did not respond with violence against the occupier?

What about the ''Christian violence''? Doesn't that count as well?

There are no instances that I can think of, where one population expelled an indigenous population from their land and homes, and the indigenous population did not respond with violence towards the foreign settlers.

I doubt you will be able to cite one instance of that having happened, either.

 

Israel hasn't annexed the VAST majority of the West Bank, hence its military occupation is perfectly legal.

 

No, it is not, and I have included a link for your education. If you choose to ignore it that's your problem. What do you not understand about, "emphasising the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory gained through war"? It's right there; paragraph 2 of the Resolution. Note that it says "territory". There is no qualification of the amount required for it to be illegal or otherwise. It is illegal; period.
Again, in case you missed it two posts back: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

 

Israel can't leave the West Bank until the following is settled:

Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force


once a comprehensive peace treaty is signed between Israel and the Palestinians, can the West Bank be evacuated.

 

Once again, I am referring to civilian settlements, not Israeli military outposts.

No country in the world recognises one square inch of the land as belonging to Israel.

When you occupy someone's land, that doesn't mean it becomes your land.

It is human nature for people to resist a hostile occupation of their land.

People in every country in Europe for example, not under Soviet control, resisted the Nazi occupation of their country using violence.

People in every country that Israel has ever invaded have resisted the occupation of their country using violence.

I look forward to any further efforts to provide an example of a country under a hostile foreign occupation, where nobody who lived there responded with violence against the occupier.

 

the Nazis invaded Poland in a war of unprovoked aggression.

Israel won the West Bank after three nations massed their armies against her, waiting to attack.

 

Apparently you don't realise that the resistance to the occupation is carried out by Christians as well. Some of the founding members of the PLO were Christians, in the days that the PLO's policy was that Israel must be destroyed. Then when Arafat began working towards a diplomatic solution, radical Christians such as George Habas split from the PLO and subsequently began developing closer ties with Hamas - and that was at the time when Hamas' policy was that Israel must be destroyed. Violence by Palestinians against Israel has always been perpetrated by Christians as well as Muslims, since Christians don't like other people forcing them from and occupying their land any more than Muslims do.