Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

You mean your big bubble of hot air? Right?

 

Crocodile tears...

(1) 181 is dead... the Jews did not kill it but rather the Arabs did!!!

(2) McMahon retraction was made... In a letter to the London Times on July 23, 1947, Sir Henry McMahon himself wrote:

quote: "I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I had also every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein." Unquote

Cry some more, you are clinging from a spider web... Your persistence is so obvious... you are losing ground...

 

he has never ever produced anything to back any of his claims, it is pretty obvious he cannot..

 

While Israel is seeking Peace... Our Peace partners are doing their best to scuttle it...

PLO ambassador in Lebanon:
Peace talks are a stage in delegitimizing "rebellious, racist" Israel

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=3188

~by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The PLO's ambassador to Lebanon says that the current peace talks "are not a goal," but just another stage in the Palestinian attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy. The Palestinian Authority official daily reported that the Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah described the peace talks as part of a broader process to isolate Israel, "threaten its legitimacy" and present it as a "rebellious, racist state."

Abdullah indicated that this goal to call attention to Israel's "war crimes" and isolate it, as was done to South Africa, is already being realized: "Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes."

Following are the Palestinian goals for the peace talks, according to the PLO Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah:


"The PLO's representative in Lebanon, Ambassador Abdullah Abdullah, emphasized yesterday that the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, which have started in Washington, are not a goal, but rather another stage in the Palestinian struggle... He believes that Israel will not be dealt a knock-out defeat, but rather an accumulation of Palestinian achievements and struggles, as happened in South Africa, to isolate Israel, to tighten the noose on it, to threaten its legitimacy, and to present it as a rebellious, racist state. He noted that Israel faces international isolation with doubt cast on its legitimacy, because of its actions and the war crimes which it has carried out. He added, 'Many Israelis in senior positions are afraid to travel to European countries lest they be put on trial for their crimes.'"

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2010]

 

LOL ... just as I predicted about McMahon. Hey, HBendor, as you instructed me to do a few days ago - READ the correspondence of 1915, not what a member of a self-serving regime had to say when the fruits of its duplicity hit the fan. ONLY THE ACTUAL APPROVED CORRESPONDENCE IS VALID, HBendor, just as I was told by you to read the actual words of 242.

But now we have a precarious situation that has developed, good readers:

# On the one hand HBendor and wersted are scintillatingly obvious in their non-ability to show us factually where 'Balfour' promised a sovereign state to the Jews, and/or where the 1922 approval did likewise. They have been challenged on numerous occasions and have come up *CLANG* empty.

# On the other hand, UNGA resolution 181 is dead according to HBendor (see above). BUT, and here it becomes piquant, wersted claims that 181 is the final outcome of the (non-evident!!) promise of statehood made by Balfour. Our Zionist colleagues are at odds - one says 181 is void, and the other says it is the grand finale. Which will be proved correct?

Now for a word from our sponsors. Don't go away.

 

So, will Israel really withdraw?

 

REALLY??!! Awesome. The parallels are becoming more evident by the day.

 

Nice dream once again with ad hominem

 

"Uruknet"? Perhaps your next source might be "Hobbitsland"...you'll be that much more credible...

 

I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else here, the facts are long embraced and accepted by the wide public.

The letter said a "...homeland for the jewish people." That seems pretty clear to most rational humans, and no matter how hard you and the other stormfronters mightily struggle to try and twist the meaning of a rather clear and obvious sentence - well, it ain't gonna happen.

Keep trying though, it is entertaining to watch a person stand outside and try to stop the wind blowing...

 

I like how one stormfronter tries to claim that the original author of a document had intended something different than what was broadly accepted - but but but - when posters show how Lord Carren and others who wrote 242 state that their intent was not for israel to exit ALL of the West Bank, the stormfronters DEMAND that their interpretation is false, and that only the opinions of the voting diplomats is acceptable.

The hypocrisy is just hilarious...

 

JORDAN/PALESTINE
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/jordan-palestine-13754

 

Thank you for agreeing with us. But you have just shown us where it stated 'homeland'. You did not show where it offered a 'sovereign stand-alone state', as you have been claiming all along. That counts as a failure - plain and simple. And yet, even as you swap words and claim their equivalence, you have the gall to accuse me of trying to twist meanings!! That is just so transparently a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

No, wersted, methinks it is dead plain to all forum readers that it is you who are swappping words, not me. It is YOU who are wriggling on the end of a string, not me.

Then, in an attempt to ameliorate your failure, you provide an unsubstantiated (once again!!) anecdote which appears to imply that your thesis that 'homeland' is directly equivalent to a 'sovereign stand-alone State' 'must be clear to most rational humans'. You forget that recently you were provided with a verifiable key reference, the British WHite Paper of 1922, that the senior British official in the creation of the Mandate for Palestine, Winston Churchill, categorically stated that the intention was NOT to create a Jewish state, or to convert Palestine into a centre of Jewishdom. And yet you have the brass to claim that the reverse is clear to most rational humans. Of all people I would have thought that you might have hesitated before claiming that Winston Churchill was not a rational human. Failure number 2.

The Myth remains busted!!

 

It seems that not only is the pendulum swinging with regard to Israel in terms of the increasingly widespread knowledge that many of the sacred Israeli views on history are in fact myths, and not only is this being reflected in the fear amongst Israeli officials that they could be brought to trial for their crimes, but it is also starting to be seen in the reaction of institutions that would previously never have blatantly criticised Israel. The Dutch seem to be at the forefront again.

One case was the annihilation by the TV program Nova of the myth that the Arabs started the 1966/1967 war. But now the actions have become more direct. The Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) withdrew its support from an October trip of Israeli mayors to Holland after it learned that settler council heads were among the group’s participants.

This comes on top of recent boycotts by academic institutions of their Israeli counterparts. The similarities to what happened to South Africa are indeed growing by the day

 

LOL, if that's what you believe, by all means.

The intent of the authors and diplomats of the time was to create a "jewish homeland", i.e., sovereign jewish (but not exclusively jewish) national homeland in a part of the mandate. This fact is in bedrock and subsequent documents, laws and UN resolutions build upon it.

You and the other clueless, jewhating posters can try to obfuscate this fact of history with all of the stormfront-driven language and nonsense you can find in the gutters of the internet - but it will never change the facts in my paragraph above.

Your hilarious squirming and frustration towards trying to prove water is not wet though, is rather entertaining...

"You did not show where it offered a 'sovereign stand-alone state', as you have been claiming all along.[/quote]

If 1,000 lawyers, diplomats and layman were polled after reading the letter, 999 would agree that the language referred to a set-aside jewish nation. But you keep trying to roll that elephant up the hill.

It obviously was, since all follow-up legislation continued this trend.

The point was that they were not going to convert ALL of the mandate over to a jewish homeland/national state - just part of it.

Your anger and frustration at fighting 80 years of facts and history, while hilarious, will not lead to success...

 

Clearly all your subsequent insulting nonsense after this post merely hides the fact that you refuse or cannot show the authorisation to create your own state rather than simply have a place for the jews in Palestine.

Moreover you are wrong. You do indeed need to prove the things you say are correct here. Or at least show us why your line of reasoning is correct and others are not.

Otherwise what are you here for?

 

UNILATERAL PEACE MAKING

There is an expectation in the World, that peace making (in the Middle East) must be unilateral. Israel must make continuous tangible concessions (for it is occupying supposedly Arab Land, etc., ) or else there will be a collapse of peace making, which in turn causes panic in the meddling European Union and other powers.

What is too obvious to be said is that the Arab does not intend to ever make anything resembling a concession. The expectation is that violence must occur if Israelis judged to be not forthcoming enough. The international community is, in large measure, responsible for fostering a violent climate. The continuous abuse and misuse of the United Nations by large voting blocs such as the Arab and Islamic blocs has created expectations among Arabs and Muslims that the United Nations will not only rubber stamp their violence, but provide material support.

Israel is NOT occupying anyone's Land but its own... One has to remember that 77% of Mandated Palestine now (OCCUPIED BY THE ARTIFICIAL STATE OF JORDAN) was to be part and parcel of the "Heritage of the World Jewish Nation" until surreptitiously given away by the British to an upstart from the "Hedjaz" by the name of Abdullah.

Israel conceded this loss when it signed a Peace agreement with Jordan.

 

Who is us? Who died and appointed you their 'porte parole'/'messenger'???

 

Us is a number of people who agree with klip klap and others generally and disagree with you.


Fair enough?

 

This nonsense has already been examined in other threads and found to be wanting.

 

Such a proposal would have inherently violated the civil Rights on the non-Jewish population which was expressly prohibited by both the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate. As history has shown the creation of Israel did violated the civil Rights of the non-Jewish population of what became Israel as hundreds of thousands of Arabs that fled Israel have been denied their natural Right of Citizenship based upon birth and have been denied the Right of Return to the land of their birth.

 

Very nice and dandy "63 years later" (let us suppose you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT"...

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT??????????

 

This nonsense (according to you) surely, does not deserve your approbation... That you disagree with this historic fact... is your own belief and acquiecence in your Arab indoctrination... Very few and far between have the testicular fortitude to STUDY the problem to the CORE then, make a non commital exclamation... I doubt you ever broached the subject matter...

 

Except for the fact, highlighted in the partition plan, that the area designated for the jewish state was majority jewish, and the area for the arabs was predominantly arab.

Really? How did they do that?

Who told them to leave?

Who told them to start a war?

I love how the far left psychotics here rage against the US/Israel attacking iran - but every war the arabs start is just fine...

They left, initiated a war against israel, and lost. In this world, you do not get to initiate conflict AND get the spoils after you lose. Grow up.

 

Well that's where we differ, I attempt to look at the facts and you're lot hide from the facts. GOLDSTONE!!! A nice 102 facts that shame your very existence.
Well if your lot had any morality but that's not required when you have the Talmud! Its legal to be a paedophile in your Talmud isn't it, provided they're goyem!

But, as usual, you can attempt to hide behind the American veto.......again!

I bet you're glad, of all that money spend getting all those senators on the AIPAC pay book! Money well spent!

Regards
Highlander