No you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Printable View
No you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Yes I have. If you were such an expert you would have seen the name slipped into one of my posts. It is a legendary book, discredited in every country of the world, including israel, but not the USA because the lobby took it on board. It is on Amazon and has lines and lines of 5 star reviews by americans who even today, over thirty years later and so dumb that they still believe it, and fools like you churn out its nonsense. It has been dismissed as a fraud, a fantasy, a malicious racist propaganda piece by everyone. You will love it - it talks your language.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTNo you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
Guess you are nothing but a typical pathetic youtube and wiki warrior.
How tedious.
Israeli Rape of Golan Heights Is Also Netanyahu’s Settlement Plan for the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza
Internationally recognized as Syrian territory, the Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel since 1967. It was captured during the 1967 Six-Day War.
On 19 June 1967, the Israeli cabinet voted to return the Golan to Syria in exchange for a peace agreement, although this was rejected after the Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967. In the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which Syria tried but failed to recapture the Golan, Israel agreed to return about 5% of the territory to Syrian civilian control. This part was incorporated into a demilitarised zone that runs along the ceasefire line and extends eastward. This strip is under the military control of UNDOF.
Construction of Israeli settlements began in the remainder of the territory held by Israel, which was under military administration until Israel passed the Golan Heights Law extending Israeli law and administration throughout the territory in 1981. This move was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in UN Resolution 497, which said that “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect.”Israel states it has a right to retain the Golan, citing the text of UN Resolution 242, which calls for “safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. However, the international community reject Israeli claims to title to the territory and regards it as sovereign Syrian territory.
‘The United States considers the Golan Heights to be Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation subject to negotiation and Israeli withdrawal. The United States considers the application of Israeli law to the Golan Heights to be a violation of international law, both the 4th Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the acquisition of territory by force and United Nations Security Council Resolution 242’
Discovery of Oil Deposits
Reportedly, the potential production of newly discovered oil deposits in the Golan may reach billions of barrels, while Israel consumes 270,000 barrels per day, it currently imports up to three quarters of its oil from the semi-autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq, the Financial Times reported in August.
The occupied region is, however, also a key source of water for an arid region dependent on the River Jordan along its length. Rainwater from the Golan’s catchment feeds into the Jordan River and currently provides a third of Israel’s water supply. Water to the Palestinian West Bank is restricted.
Israeli Rape of Golan Heights Is Also Netanyahu?s Settlement Plan for the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Bunkum.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusYes I have. If you were such an expert you would have seen the name slipped into one of my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTNo you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
You can't even remember the post you "slipped" the name of the book into, let alone its title. :)
Hey ENT, The Clown could not even remember posting me the day before he told Dr Bob he'd had me on block (ignore) for ages , Psuedo's ages means 24 hours:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTBunkum.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusYes I have. If you were such an expert you would have seen the name slipped into one of my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTNo you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
You can't even remember the post you "slipped" the name of the book into, let alone its title. :)
And if Syria got control of the Golan, water arising from there would cease to flow into Israeli territory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hans Mann
Both Syria and Jordan tried that dirty trick once before, another good reason for Israel's annexation of the Golan.
The water to the Jordan West Bank is restricted because the stupid Arabs keep sabotaging the pipes, resulting in a 30% loss of water piped in the West Bank area.
Under the OsloII accord, the Palestinian Arabs got allocated 118 million cubic meters/year from local sources, while Israelis got 483 million cubic metres/yr from the same resources, and they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by sabotaging the water pipes.
About a quarter of the 420 million m3 Israel pumps from the Sea of Galilee goes to the local communities in Israel and to Jordan; the rest is diverted to Israel through the National Water Carrier (NWC) before it can reach the West Bank.
Virtually all water from the Yarmouk River, north of the West Bank is diverted by Israel, Syria and Jordan. The water of the
Tirza Stream, the largest stream in the central Jordan Valley, fed by rainwater, is diverted by Israel to the Tirza Reservoir and used by settlements in the area for irrigation of crops and for raising fish.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_...an_territories
He's losing his marbles, a natural consequence of lying, as it takes a lot of extra thought, energy and time to (a) invent the lies, (b) remember the lies told and to whom, and (c) to remember the unadulterated truth, while (d) separating the lot gives liars more problems and nightmares, as, unable to keep track of their spin they slowly go bi-polar mad, lashing out at all and sundry in their insecurity...... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoiHey ENT, The Clown could not even remember posting me the day before he told Dr Bob he'd had me on block (ignore) for ages , Psuedo's ages means 24 hours:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTBunkum.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusYes I have. If you were such an expert you would have seen the name slipped into one of my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTNo you haven't, nor it's authour and its ISBN.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
You can't even remember the post you "slipped" the name of the book into, let alone its title. :)
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first start to deceive.", eh? :rofl:
Mind you the idiot has painted himself into a corner cos now he's got me on ignore he can't make any reply to what I say can he ? even though its his life's work to try and prove me wrong all the time :bananaman:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTHe's losing his marbles, a natural consequence of lying, as it takes a lot of extra thought, energy and time to (a) invent the lies, (b) remember the lies told and to whom, and (c) to remember the unadulterated truth, while (d) separating the lot gives liars more problems and nightmares, as, unable to keep track of their spin they slowly go bi-polar mad, lashing out at all and sundry in their insecurity...... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoiHey ENT, The Clown could not even remember posting me the day before he told Dr Bob he'd had me on block (ignore) for ages , Psuedo's ages means 24 hours:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENTBunkum.Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolusYes I have. If you were such an expert you would have seen the name slipped into one of my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
You can't even remember the post you "slipped" the name of the book into, let alone its title. :)
"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first start to deceive.", eh? :rofl:
Palestine and Transjordan became a temporary British protectorate following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WW1. The abbreviated term for this is "The Palestinian Mandate". Zionists then dishonestly use this term of convenience to imply that Palestine and Jordan were and are one and the same thing- which is manifestly untrue. This in support of a totally evil and totally unrealistic agenda of ethnically cleansing the state of Palestine of native Palestians, who have continuously occupied the land throughout history.Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Even under the British, or "Palestinian" mandate, Jordan and Palestine were absolutely not the same. Jordan was a self administered Emirate, the Emirs being the same family that rules to this day as Kings- the Hashemite's. Palestine, in contrast, was directly administered by the Brits. Jordan was never part of Palestine, at any time in world history.
Repeating a long identified Lie ad infinitum does not make it any less untrue- it merely exposes you as a serial Liar, supporting a totally unrealistic and ultimately Evil agenda. And who are you trying to fool anyway- native Palestinians are just going to walk out of their ancestral homeland because some greedy Jews say they want it? Jordan is going to accept this? The rest of the world is going to accept this? Wake up.
Maybe If Jordan had not have declared War on Israel in 1967 along with Syria and Egypt with the sole intention of annihilating them they would not have the West bank annexed by Israel .Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
D'ohhh- piwi, Israel has not annexed the West Bank. It is illegally occupying it, with IDF and illegal settlers- who, combined, are a small fraction of the population but hog most of the water and most of the desirable land. If it did annexe (or more accurately, combine with it- because Palestine is a state), then it would be compelled to grant the Palestinians citizenship in the combined state. This is exactly what I advocate- and it is called the 'one state solution'.Quote:
they would not have the West bank annexed by Israel
Because frankly it seems to me the 'two state' solution is a pipe dream now, and was never really the intention of the right wing Israeli cabal that controls the politics there anyway. Basically, I think Israel has pulled a con job on many of it's own citizens. Then again, one state/ two state doesn't really matter to me- justice for the occupied Palestinians does. Long overdue justice.
Right wing zionists however exist in this fantasy world that somehow they can just expel the native population and grab it all for themselves. Piwi- did we expel the native population of Wales? Of Ireland? Did we even try? Are Welsh and Northern Irish not UK citizens? It is beyond absurd.
OK then if Jordan had not declared war on Israel along with Syria and Egypt with the sole intention of annihilating them the west bank would not be illegally occupied would it ? ,can you in your own words state what was the purpose of the 3 pronged attack on Israel , to sell them Encyclopaedia Britannia's ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Sabang I suggest you watch this :)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo
So what are they going to do with it- combine ('one state'), or withdraw ('two state')? You are referring to a 50 year old war here- I am referring to the ongoing Occupation of Palestine.
The answer is ultimately political, and should probably be decided by Referendum. The current situation is manifestly unsustainable. The benefits to Israel of a political resolution are enormous- you can do your own research here, for a start just look at what the last two Presidents of Israel, Shimon Peres & Reuven Rivlin, have to say on the matter. They are both One State advocates.
The sad fact of the matter is that a bunch of right wing nutcases have hijacked the politics, and policies of Israel. The country that so many (especially us in the west) had such high hopes for, is rapidly degenerating into a hate filled, violent, racist cesspit under idiotic right wing politics that seek no resolution- just ongoing brutalisation of the natives, and creeping colonisation of Palestine. But the Palestinians are not going anywhere. Many Israeli's and Jews are as disgusted by this as me, and the vast majority of the world community.
^ The only thing I can tell you about that Piwibrain, is that it is anything but the truth. I have no interest in watching long discredited Lies, and why right wing zionists believe that regurgitating them ad infinitum makes any difference, is beyond me. Not everyone is as stoopid as them you know. Half of them believe in Armageddon, the other half that they can get away with anything. Neither possesses a shred of morality, common human decency, or respect for international law. Bigots, racists, human rights abusers, and criminals under international law.
Taking the 5th amendment I see , So I will ask again ,what was the purpose of the 3 pronged attack on Israel in 1967 ? General Nasser said it was to annihilate the state of Israel ,and of course you simply refuse to watch the video as your mind is made up already ,and then you have the fucking affront to call me a bigot :smileylaughing: and if they did not acquire the West bank as a direct result of the 6 day war HTF did they acquire it ?Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Again, peabrain- they did not acquire the West Bank, they Occupied it and do to this day. To acquire it, they have to politically merge with it. Why don't they do so- because that would involve granting the indigenous people citizenship.
Nasser said lots of things- he was a notorious bigmouth, as was Hitler. So what? How is a 50 year old war relevant to the ongoing, illegal and brutal occupation of Palestine, and the glaring failure to politically resolve the situation and grant the native Palestinian's Rights within their own country?Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Consider the absurdity of your position. You are arguing against the United Nations, international law, the EU, USA, Arab League and the opinion of the vast majority of the worlds population, of most Jews outside of Israel, and of many, many Israeli's also. Your intellectual resources are quite humble in comparison.:rolleyes: In favour of ethnic cleansing and potential genocide.
Well Mr Pedantic they have been there since 1967 with no signs that they will ever leave so as far as I am concerned they acquired it off the Jordanians who in all probability had not threw the dice and lost would still have had the West Bank ,you are just playing about with words but giving no real answers ,almost 1,000 Israeli service men lost their lives in the 6 day war ,are you saying that the Arabs did not mean to kill them and it was all a big mistake?:rofl: the object of war is to kill the enemy and the Arabs tried and failed its that fucking simple , and if the Arabs had won there would have be no such Country as Israel today .Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
And of course Sabang you can produce proof that this entire article (which you will steadfastly refuse to read):) is an exercise in fiction and the 6 day war never happened ? 19 Statement to the Security Council by Foreign Minister Eban- 6 June 1967
If this is the case (although hardly for you to decide) then it becomes a simple apartheid struggle, leading to the merging of the two states and the granting of citizenship to the Palestinians. Unless of course you are a right wing zionist living in his dreamworld, who just thinks it is possible to expel or eliminate 5.2 million Palestinians living in Palestine so that you can take their land.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
But to many Israeli's and Jews, it is much, much more than that- it is a question of the nature of the state of Israel going forward. To some, "Israel as a Jewish state" is the prime concern- and Israel would only be left with a single digit Jewish majority if it combined with Palestine. So they favor the two state solution. To one staters however, eretz or greater Israel is of more importance- a larger, economically stronger, arguably more defensible Israel but with a more diverse population, and a greatly reduced Jewish majority. So which is it to be? What is manifestly the case is that ethnic cleansing and potential genocide are not on the cards, and that the Palestinian population, which is still increasing in Gaza & the West Bank, is not going anywhere.
Actually piwi I find government communications, while not always honest, well worth reading- as opposed to regurgitated right wing Zionist lies, long discredited. So I did. I quote the final paragraph-Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
How is Israel demonstrating it's 'instinct for peace' by continuing the illegal occupation and creeping colonisation of Palestine, 50 (OK, 49) years later, with no political resolution in sight?Quote:
I think that Israel has in recent days proved its steadfastness and vigour. It is now willing to demonstrate its instinct for peace. Let us build a new system of relationships from the wreckage of the old. Let us discern across the darkness the vision of a better and a brighter dawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pseudolus
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by ENT
Not even rw zionists mention 'From Time Immemorial" anymore- it's just too embarrassing. They still however regularly borrow and regurgitate it's lies.
You are STILL avoiding the simple question , what was the Joint Armies of Syria ,Egypt and Jordans intentions was when the 6 day war erupted ? and HTF can the Israeli's sit round the Table with Hamas when it simply refuse's to knowledge Israeli's right to exist , Israeli signed a peace deal with both Egypt and Jordan , they could maybe even do it with Mahmoud Abbas in the West bank but Hamas and Gaza a snowball in hells chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
You are wasting both our times going on , so from one bigot to another give it a rest eh:)Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
YOU already answered that- according to Nasser, it was to destroy the state of Israel. Like so what- that was 50 years ago, and Israel now enjoys cordial relations with Egypt and Jordan. What were Hitler's intentions- but do we not now enjoy cordial relations with Germany? War and Peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Yes, always that old non-sequitur when everything else fails. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
- Hamas is not a party to peace talks between the PNA & Israel.
- Hamas has clearly stated it will abide by any negotiated peace deal, subject only to it being passed by a Referendum of the Palestinian people.
Sounds fair to me- seeing as I advocate the same for Israel to decide whether they pursue a one or two state solution.
I regularly rail against the illegal settlers, in particular the vile outpost settlers- but I do not mistake them for the political leadership of Israel, or the average Israeli citizen. You should show the same common sense about Hamas- as well as realise that the radicalisation of many in Gaza is a direct consequence of the appalling conditions there, and Israeli actions there.
Ahhh yes this old canard. So what was it all actually about? Were Egypt, Jordan and Syria planning on "wiping israel off the face of the map"? Umm no.Quote:
Originally Posted by piwanoi
Why did israel attack these three countries?
1 - Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba, Israel's only access to the Red Sea in May?
2 - israel wanted to lay down a marker to say "we are the boss now"?
3 - Creating the myth of israel under attack, thus convincing the Jews of the world
to support israel passionately, because up until this point only zionists did?
4 - a Land grab. Israel wanted more Arab land?
All four - the last two most importantly.
So did israel think the three neighbours were actually going to attack? No.
did the USA think the three neighbours were actually going to attack? No.
Were they going to attack? No.
Quote:
Israeli Chief of Staff Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”
Quote:
Mordecai Bentov, one of the signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”
Quote:
General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”
Quote:
General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”
Quote:
General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
Quote:
General Matetiyahu Peled “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” ... “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
Quote:
General Matetiyahu Peled “All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”
Quote:
General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and President of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”
Now not only did israel KNOW there was no danger, but they also went to LBJ and with all their intelligence they had gathered and asked them to explore if there was a danger. The US Intelligence system came back and said categorically that there was NO DANGER. Nassar was a windbag, just like every other middle east leader, and nothing more. Israel was so well armed, certainly NOT a David to the Goliath israeli propaganda makes out to believe. So much so that Robert McNamara stated if there was a war, it would be a clear and decisive victory for Israel in 7-10 days.
The other myth surround the 6 day war is that is lasted 6 days. The unprovoked attacks on its neighbours, who were not in any way revved up for a war, lasted about 24 hours, during which time all of the Egyptian air capability had been destroyed on the ground. With no troops massed, and then no air force, the war was over. Then came the israeli Land Grab, which was 50% of what the war was all about.
So, there you go PIWI. put another of your and Ent's israel lies to bed.
What's the next load of rubbish you want to bring to the table?
:chitown: