Thread: WWIII?

As I said before Al the Jew, the Israelis must be removed from the stolen land. If Israeli 'settlers' children die on the stolen lands you might want to blame their parents and the Israeli government for putting them in that dangerous area. Even the Nazis, didn't move their wives and children onto the lands they stole during their insane occupation of Europe. The Israelis are a nation of fanatical sick people and anyone who would support them is warped. They put their own children in the line of fire and encourage collateral damage.

Originally Posted by Imminent

As I said before Al the Jew, the Israelis must be removed from the stolen land.

Uh, how about starting by removing the Jordanians from the far larger lands they stole, first?

Originally Posted by Imminent

The Israelis are a nation of fanatical sick people

Nice unsubstantiated and faulty try at demonizing the other side.

I don't see Israeli fanatics strap suicide vests to their children and women, to blow themselves (and, ironically, mostly their own people) up? I don't see the Israelis fly planes into buildings. I don't see the Israelis proclaim wanting the death of every single Palestinian or Arab.

The only "fanatical sick people" that I see, are Muslim (and a very small minority of religious zealots in Israel, but they are also mostly busy killing their own)

Originally Posted by Imminent

They put their own children in the line of fire and encourage collateral damage.

Last I checked Hamas, and the other Muslim radicals were not just using their own children as human shields, but encouraging them to be suicide bombers. I don't see either of what you suggest from Israelis. I see a lot of it from Hamas and MUslim extremists...

Here, have a tinfoil hat - sounds to me like it'll go well with your wardrobe.

(the irony of all this is that I find myself in agreement with Albert and ENT on this issue...)

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Really, there were more than 100 rockets fired from Gaza during the last few days? How long can anybody expect Israel to NOT shoot back? And if they do, they do it so it hurts. Getting those who ordered the firing seems appropriate to me.

Why are these rockets being fired ?
Maybe some poor Pali's family house has just been Bulldozed by the IDF and now Mom and Dad are ready and willing to do anything to hurt the other side ?

Why do we hear only one side of the story ?
Heard of any Israeli settlement constructions lately ? Their plenty of it.

Getting those who ordered the firing seems appropriate to me.

Yes you're right, but it goes for both sides.





Breaking the Silence › Israeli soldiers talk about the occupied territories


The guy in charge of army D-9 bulldozers comes along, and tells you: "Come on, come on now, what about those houses over there?" He looks at your map, points to "1203, 1204, what about these? What about these? Well, do I take them down? Take them down?"

07.11.2012

[972mag]
Israel demolishes two Palestinian homes in Area C

As America celebrated the re-election of Barack Obama, it was business as usual in Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank. At least two Palestinian homes were demolished today

04.11.2012

[Haaretz]
IDF reprimands settler official over illegal construction

The security official was filmed using his IDF-issued vehicle to transport material used for illegal construction, which violates army regulations.

Hamas rockets to Israel.

Since then, the two sides had observed an informal and uneasy cease-fire. In recent months, the number of rockets fired into southern Israel by militant groups in Gaza had risen. Hamas had mostly held its fire while it struggled to rein in those groups.
But it has responded forcefully to the new assault, sending more than 300 rockets into Israel over 24 hours, with several penetrating the heart of Israel’s population center around Tel Aviv.
Gaza Strip News - Breaking World Gaza Strip News - The New York Times

Who gives a shit how many rockets they launch at Israel. Israel has stolen their land and homes. Can't you understand that? All Israel has to do is start giving it back and things there would be more peace in the region. No, it can't do that because it wants the land and it is willing to war until it gets all the land in it plans. Israel has the most blood on its hands in the land of Palestine. It will never give the land back because Israeli is run by sick hate-filled resentful Jews. As I said before, if the Palestinians can't get the land back I hope they get revenge as they are dealing with a monster. There's no hope for Palestine with Nazis running the Israeli government.

we must see one thing... whatever goes to gaza, whether by tunnel or otherwise, israel knows about it...

there has been increasing criticism on the israel government - mainly of course by the leftist in tel aviv...
you should have heard them, when the first rockets landed near tel aviv, a year or more ago... "bomb em all in gaza"... that was the tune, of the prominent leftists on haaretz... (except for gideon levy and amira hass)

and now? oooopss... tel aviv is bombed, and the ultra-orthodox jerusalem as well...

israel knows exactly, who moves in gaza and who is on the toilet right now... they have drones, and informers everywhere... and so they know whats smuggled into...

if they have - after years and years - all of a sudden rockets reaching tel aviv, then bibi and co know about it, for long already... and they also know, where they are hidden - not rocket science with all that drones...

Originally Posted by ENT

The Arabs already got their share of British mandated Palestine in 1922.

This argument is false....the map is misleading. That map is not part of the mandate.

The British mandate for Palestine only extended to the River Jordan....never west of the river as TransJordan had already been pledged to the Arabs.

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Maybe some poor Pali's family house has just been Bulldozed by the IDF and now Mom and Dad are ready and willing to do anything to hurt the other side ?

That's a nice bedtime story....

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

Why do we hear only one side of the story ?

Because you refuse to acknowledge that there is another side.

Originally Posted by Anatidaephobia

Originally Posted by Imminent

The Israelis are a nation of fanatical sick people

Nice unsubstantiated and faulty try at demonizing the other side.

Have to agree with Anatidaephobia on this one. It would'nt be fair to call just one side "Fanatical Sick People". Remember what the Nasty Shagger said:

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

...... who all came from the family of Abraham.

They are brothers ! So they both deserve to be called "Fanatical Sick People !"
We all would have been better off if Albert shagged Abraham’s wife. No use crying over spilled sper…..milk.

Capiche?

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by ENT

The Arabs already got their share of British mandated Palestine in 1922.

This argument is false....the map is misleading. That map is not part of the mandate.

The British mandate for Palestine only extended to the River Jordan....never west of the river as TransJordan had already been pledged to the Arabs.

^ Nonesense.
How did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?

The 1922 White Paper (also called the Churchill White Paper) was the first official manifesto interpreting the Balfour Declaration. It was issued on June 3, 1922, after investigation of the 1921 disturbances. Although the White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River from Jewish settlement. That land, 76% of the original Palestine Mandate land, was renamed Transjordan and was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British.
The White Paper included the statement that the British Government:

• … does not want Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English”, rather should become “a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.”

After the partition, Transjordan remained part of the Palestine Mandate and its legal system applied to all residents, both East and West of the Jordan River, who all carried Palestine Mandate passports. Palestine Mandate currency was the legal tender in Transjordan as well as the area West of the river. This was the consistent situation until 1946, 24 years later, when Britain completed the action by unilaterally granting Transjordan its independence. Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.


Creation of Transjordan

^ I suggest you re-read Article 25 of the mandate ENT.

The area East of the River Jordan was to be under British rule: "until such time as they are able to stand alone" aka Palestine and that West of the river was to be governed semi-autonomously by the Hashemite family aka TransJordan. This is clearly stated in the 1922 mandate as is the provision for Jewish settlement in the area West of the River Jordan...as long as it does not interfere with the rights of those already living there. This stems from the McMahon agreement of 1915 and then the Balfour agreement of 1917, which I referred to in an earlier post. I believe the Balfour Agreement was a precondition of the USA entering WW1... although I may have mis-interpreted.

To suggest that the area was partitioned such that the Jewish population had the area West of the River Jordan and the Arabs the area East, as your map portrays, is a misleading simplification of a very complex agreement. An agreement that took many years to finalise and even then, required subsequent amendments.

As to your link..."This is a moderated site. Only comments that add value to the discussion will be published" can be interpreted as "Only those that agree with us will be published".

In other words the whole area depicted in that map was called Palestine under the British mandate for it.

Originally Posted by Troy

Originally Posted by ENT

Thus the British subverted the purpose of the Palestine Mandate, partitioned Palestine and created an independent Palestine-Arab state with no regard for the rights and needs of the Jewish population.

The two were always separate from the 1915 Agreement....Your posts and map portray them as the same...they were not. The quote from your post above is pure nonsense..

Total and utter rubbish.
All the territories previously controlled by the Ottoman Empire up to WW1 was under the mandate Britain had to administer, and all was called Palestine.
So Churchill later made a deal over it all with the Arabs and handed 77% of it over for their exclusive use. Jews were not allowed into that part called Trans Jordan.

Total and Utter rubbish only for Revisionist Zionism ENT....

Originally Posted by ENT

The White Paper included the statement that the British Government:
… does not want Palestine to become “as Jewish as England is English”, rather should become “a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.”

I missed this bit earlier and I think it is worth a response since it is typical of the half-truths and misrepresentation of facts that are all too often present on the internet and all too often quoted by ENT....

Yes, the quote is in the White Paper but it reads a little differently when quoted in context:

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Ent is making it seem as if Churchill made a deal with the Arabs at the expense of the Jews.

So Churchill later made a deal over it all with the Arabs and handed 77% of it over for their exclusive use. Jews were not allowed into that part called Trans Jordan.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Churchill was able to appease the Arabs and allow the Jews to settle within Palestine (as defined by the McMahon Agreement)

'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000… it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

'This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.'

In practice though, it did cause alarm amongst the Arabs and it did disappoint the Jews....However, everyone is a loser in Diplomacy.

Like you say, everyone's a loser in diplomacy.

So the Arabs should start giving back that land to the Turks, eh.

I wouldn't say that WW1 was particularly diplomatic....would you?

Interesting stuff, Troy.

So what happened to cause the first Arab - Israeli war?

^ Which "first" are you referring to....

This particular soapy has gotten fukkin boring many decades ago.

I can't understand why people argue either side's case. Leave them to kill each other. They both have powerful Gods on their side. What's to worry about? What man can do better than their magnificent Gods?

^ It may have become boring many years ago but it is still the main cause of friction in the World. It is worth knowing why they are fighting and why it is so difficult to resolve. More importantly, it shows how words can be written in such a way that both sides can read into them their own point of view, how theory and practice divulge and why promises for short term gain can lead to long term suffering.

Plan B: I asked the question because I didn't want to be drawn into the pedantries of who hit whom first. Apologies if I may have sounded terse.

The problem stems from the McMahon and Balfour declarations, as I have previously alluded to. The British Mandate for Palestine allowed the settlement of Jews in Palestine and this caused friction from the outset. the UN resolution to partition Palestine in order to form Israel was the ref's whistle for the start. Ironically, if the Arabs hadn't jumped into battledress and attempted to kill Israel before it was born then they would be far better off than they are now.

Incidentally, I am not taking the Arab side. However, I am also not happy with the idea that Israel was meant to be a self standing Nation either and the "winnings" of WW1 were to be divided up equally, or otherwise, between Arabs and non-Arabs. I need to reread the history around the Balfour Declaration to remember why I had always thought that this was a pre-condition to the USA entering the War....I also need to go back and study why McMahon referenced the non-Arabs in his correspondence to Hussein.

troy, you fell for the propaganda...

its NOT about balfour, its NOT about otomans or the pharaos...

its ONLY about giving up the territories... thats "the conflict"...

muslims dont like jews, and dont like christians...
this will always stay so - at least for somewhat longer...
a real extremist jew or christian dont like muslims either
nor do extremist christians like the jews
or the extremist jews the muslims..

extremist religious groups just dont like each other - end off... nobody can change this... (anytime soon)

but with the occupation, its MORE friction, much more...
the intl community appeals again and again on israel to RESOLVE THIS ONE...

no, it wont make the muslims loving jews and neither the jews loving muslims, but it will reduce the tension...

the current occupation has to end...

balfour, transjordan and all the b.s. doesnt matter - its nothing than extremist propaganda...
its about the occupation in 2012... and the 67-borders...