Palestinian terrorism in Tel-Aviv ( 20 Israeli citizens are wounded )

The British Mandate was concluded in May 14th 1948, but the Mandate, the historical document, wasnt.

 

that makes no sense. none whatsoever.

The Mandate for Palestine ended 66 years ago.

all the whining in the world can't change that fact.

 

What difference at this point does it make?

 

Abu Adolf Mazen knows that if he will sign peace with Israel, his faith will be simillar to the poor Jordanian pilot burned alive by Arabs.

 

It is not trolling. Just history.

The British Mandate ended 66 years ago and nothing cant change it, right.
It makes perfectly sense, when the Brits gave back the Mandate to the UN and that because Article 80.

 

Is this a joke ? Israelis call others as "terrorists" ???

 

How is calling a terrorist a joke? The fact that you believe Israel engages in terrorism does not mean Hamas magically stops being terrorist.

Logic is not your forte. Hey but then I get that. Why be logical. Now lets get back to calling Israel names Terrorist is so used. Try poopoo kaka country. It has a nice sound to it. Try it. Israel poopoo kaka. Or this one sounds good too..Israel pooopy pants.

 

No Mandate exists if it has no personnel, no commissioners, no offices, etc etc.

saying that the Palestine Mandate is still in effect is pathetic trolling.

 

Not trolling, but that's according to Article 80 of the UN Charter.

 

sorry, but that's not true.

you keep saying things are not true, and you've been shown its not true. but you keep trolling.

 

It's not trolling, i'ts history!

 

its not history if its a lie.

 

The UN Charter is a lie?
The giving back of the Mandate by the Brits in 1947 is a lie?

 

The UN Charter doesn't say what you claim it says.

The Mandate concluded in 1948.

 

Article 80 keeps the Mandate valid. Article 80 was made it's way to the UN Charter in San Francisco Conference, 1945, got the porpose of keeping the Mandate valid.

Like I said- The British Mandate was indeed concluded in 1948, but the Mandate (= the document) wasnt.

 

Your obfuscations and trolling are transparent. The Mandate comprises documentation and therefore your attempt to differentiate the two is moot. A mandate is an authoritative command or authorization to act which is comprised of documentation. It follows that the document that comprised the authorization to act (ie the mandate) concluded.

 

some of the stupidest, most ignorant things said in this forum.

no wonder Israel doesn't want to defend their case at the ICC, as their case is made up of absurdity, ignorance, and dishonesty.

 

The only way to fix the middle east problem short of genocide is, build a wall 50 feet tall around Israel, disarm everyone. Then let them duke it out until they are tired of fighting and are willing to live side by side.

I figure HBO can put cameras all over so the rest of us can watch for entertainment and make bets on the brawls.

 

The League of Nations gave the responsibility to fulfill the Mandate to the Brits, when in 1947 they gave it back (= the responsibility on the fulfillment of the Mandate) to the UN- it's history, not trolling.

The British Mandate is one thing and the Mandate, which is the historical document that the League of Nations made and article 80 keeps it valid, is another.
Moreover, let's us not forget that Britain gave back the Mandate, so this fact only contridact what you claim that it is "stupid".

 

ignorant nonsense.

please, just stop already.

 

It's just history.

 

your version of history would be laughed out of court.



this is why Israel wants to bankrupt the ICC, rather than argue their case before it.

 

This is not my history, it is the history of the history books, of the historians.

 

On the contrary, it's the "history" of Hasbara propagandists. If that wasn't the case then Israel would be able to argue their case before the ICC.

 

This is the history of historians, and not some propoganda.