Palestina recongized as "Free and Sovereign Nation" within 1967 borders.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Your argument about it being illegal to take land in war is without basis. Provide the "law" and then provide the law enforcers, and how that law will be enforced.

I suppose it's also illegal to attack another nation.

If so, then Israel has been attacked by other nations multiple times, and each time, they ended up with more territory.

Here's the deal. You get attacked, you can defend yourself. You gain land through victory, and that land is yours. And if someone can take it back . . . well, that hasn't worked out so well, has it?

Let me give you a clue. The United Nations did not determine the borders of nations.

War did that.

reply to post by FarArcher


Fourth Geneva Convention, Section III, article 49

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.

The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

It is legal to hold captured territory (occupied territory) but it does not become yours. You can't let your people move into it, nor can you move the locals out of it, except as a measure to protect them from warfare; at which point they become refugees, with the absolute right of return.

"And then provide the law enforcers" - As if being able to get away with a crime means it's not criminal.

reply to post by FarArcher
I hope no one lends any credibility to your posts.
What you are saying is nothing but pure propaganda.
It reflects no knowledge of how the world works.
It is just so many words for the ignorant and uninformed to be taken in and think things are fine and its ok to just go back to sleep and you have no responsibility for what is going on.
That would be a wrong conclusion because we will be judged by God for our complicity in crimes perpetrated by people who themselves have no concern about a future judgement because they make themselves their own god.
But Christians have a real God who is the Father of Jesus, who we will stand before in judgement and the blood of the Palestinians will be upon us because we did nothing to stop their murder. We are accessories to murder by not speaking out against the crimes of the false zionists who are not even true zionists but stole the name just as they stole the name of Israel and Judaism.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

You can't have it both ways.

Israel and Jordan were signatories. No "Palestine."

Jordan attacked Israel, and annexed the land as well as part of Jerusalem.

If they're Palestinians, then they are provided zero protections, as this only pertains to signatories.

If they're Jordanians, THEN they're now Israeli, due to the taking of territory during the course of a defensive war.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I don't lend any credibility you your posts, and Israel doesn't recognize the claim that this is other than Israeli land.

You want to preach to me, you get urass up in the pulpit on Sunday, but you better know your stuff.

I've seen some so-called Christians who seem all high and mighty about the toleration part, and forget the Apostles were instructed to take their swords with them.

And I assure you it wasn't for picking their teeth.

I also recall a Roman Centurion who was portrayed as a Christian, without any crap about his livelihood.

One other little item, just for the hell of it. Study both the Qur'an and the Hadith. And THEN tell me about how Christians should handle the poor Palestinians.

As if there is such a thing.

Know any Daens?

You are already of the devil so I am not preaching to you.
I am preaching to any Christian who might happen upon this thread.
The toleration I am talking about is the toleration of genocide, the toleration that American Christians are guilty of every day that they do not speak up against the criminals taking Palestine from the rightful inhabitants by a people who have no hereditary claim but are Caucasian converts to Judaism.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are already of the devil so I am not preaching to you.

Ahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! Nice arguement..
What a sad tard.


@FarArcher - I advise you not to spend your time on these buffoons.

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
I gave you a star for this post of yours that I will now criticize, actually, I only criticize this one part.

You are correct about all zionists being complicit in the criminal acts of the zionist settler state. They actively vote for extreme right wing parties and in the December 2008 zionist assault, surveys established more than 90% approved of the siege on the people in Gaza.

Because right after this is the filmclip in which the lady says, "They chose Hamas to rule them, it's their fault." Bombing them the only solution. "I think they should just clear off the city, just take it off the ground. Yes, I'm a little bit fascist."

Even the term "Zionism" has become an ambiguous term, in that two Zionists can have widely different understandings of what their Zionism means to them. Labels, are ultimately not sufficient to determine criminal status. Some Nazis may have been Nazis merely to hold a decent job in Germany. Such a Nazi should not be hung for merely being a Nazi.

Zionism itself, though in my opinion an obsolete iron age notion, to some serves as 'the marker' that some hold for an identity, be it cultural or tribal or whatever. The pre-WWII Zionist writings are very much different from post-WWII writings.

I think Zionism has been hijacked in order to continue strife and bloodshed. The government of Israel is becoming more and more influenced by extreme Zionism. Many of the civil rights activists being persecuted may still see themselves as Zionists even as they condemn the Settler Movement for crimes against humanity.

If by some strange quirk of fate I found myself in the shoes of one of these activists being dragged to death behind a car driven by a settler, I would appreciate it if people didn't say, "Well he also is a Zionist, so he deserves it."

reply to post by pthena


I agree with you on your points but I use the term zionist or zionism as a short hand. While there is a wide spectrum of beliefs in the zionist continuum, it is irrelevant to outsiders. I would rather use the term "zionist" instead of Russian/EasternEuropean/Askenazim/Jew because they are not interchangeable. One does not have to be a Jew to be a Zionist and not all Jews are Zionists.

reply to post by FarArcher

. . .they're now Israeli, due to the taking of territory during the course of a defensive war.

Why did the allies fight against Nazi Germany when they fought a defensive war against the Poles?
Didn't they have a right to take the land that had German people living in it that was on the Polish side of an arbitrary boundary drawn up by other parties after WW I?
The Polish people did not like the fact that there were what they considered to be Germans, living in what they considered to be Poland so they persecuted and started murdering the ethnic German people.
By your logic, Germany had every right to keep the land they acquired from Poland, in order to protect their own ethnic group.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy

Ahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!! Nice arguement..

That statement indicates to me that you are of the same ilk.
People who have lived with this situation most of their lives and accept it as being normal.
Your upbringing is tainted by the toleration of evil to where you call evil good and no amount of preaching will change that.
You have been taught to have a heart of stone and the spirit of God has passed you by in favor of a more receptive people. The chosen people of God are those who do not have a heart of stone and are receptive to the promptings of the holy spirit. Those people are the true Israel, who bear the name of God.
The time of ancestral tribalism as a means to salvation is dead and gone for two thousand years.

reply to post by pthena
Zion, isn't that a hill in Jerusalem?
I think it is. And isn't that the city that stood against the Israelites up until David took it?
So, what does "Zion" mean? Is it, "Now we took this strong place and we make it our own strong place and build our temple on the hill and that makes us even more invulnerable."?
So is zionism kind of like the prophecy of Daniel about those who worship fortresses?

reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
I understand the need for shorthand and terminology. I think the 'settler movement' may do as the enemy of peace. The Palestinian Doctor who's daughters were killed in Cast Lead identifies ignorance as the enemy; ignorance that brings fear and insecurity which leads to dehumanizing brutality.

I suppose that if people use 'Zionism' as the shorthand, people may give the Zion concept itself a rethink, and conclude that it is obsolete.

reply to post by FarArcher

and forget the Apostles were instructed to take their swords with them.

People are fond of mentioning that story, without the follow-up, that they said to Jesus, "Look, we have two swords!" and Jesus said, "That is enough."

Imagine, in some alternate future, the Museum of Peace. There, in a glass case, are the two swords, with a plaque reading, "The two swords that were sufficient for the whole history of Christianity."

Oh, how different history could have been! In our future, thanks to our history, that plaque would have to read, "The two swords that could have, would have, should have, been sufficient for Christianity."

I also recall a Roman Centurion who was portrayed as a Christian, without any crap about his livelihood.

When soldiers went out to John the Baptist, and asked, "What must we do?" He replied, "Be content with your wages, and do not resort to extortion." That is a really down to earth suggestion. Extortion is taking by force. Have you been suggesting all along that land grabs through use of arms is okay? You may want to give that a bit of a rethink.

reply to post by jmdewey60

So is zionism kind of like the prophecy of Daniel about those who worship fortresses?

Yep, that exactly. Jesus didn't support Zionism. He knew the city would fall, he knew the temple would be demolished. He was quite plain about it, therefore the Zionists wanted to kill him. Jesus also mentioned the death of Zechariah. That Zechariah was the prophet of the "return from exile" but toward the end of his life, he mentioned the future sacking of Jerusalem, with 1/3 killed, 1/3 taken away, 1/3 left. For that he was killed.

That bizarre concept of an indestructible city just refuses to go away, no matter how many times it must be rebuilt.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You have been taught to have a heart of stone

And you say this based on what? The fact I've got "Israel" in my nickname?
Or the fact that I laugh at ignorant comments such as "you are the people of the devil!"? Pfffffft.

How do you manage to speculate what was taught to me?

Simple answer - you're a quick-to-judge fool on the verge of turning a racist bastard.

Who the hell are you to tell me what kind of heart do I have? Who gave you that right? Bigoted fool.

reply to post by IsraeliGuy

. . .you're a quick-to-judge fool . . .

Even a fool can see the obvious.
That's what I mean, that you are blind to evil.
And I don't want to include Israelis only, but I would imagine those are the most affected and victimized by a fraud that has to tell lies to support itself and to ignore the concept of a virtuous life meaning to do good to others, because of a government policy that does evil to others.
America does the same thing but those most affected by it are the soldiers who go to places like Afghanistan and Iraq and witness the policy of evil by our own government. Israeli children live right in it and become abused children, abused as witnesses to brutality perpetrated on other children not so different than themselves.
I don't know what you mean by "bigot". Please explain exactly what kind of bigotry I am on the verge of.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Man, don't come talking about Nazis and Poland and war.

Don't talk to me about land and ownership from some third party determinations.

In 1938 Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia if Britain didn't support his takeover of the Sudetenland. Neville (Candiass) Chamberlain of Britain discussed the matter with Eduard Benes of Czechoslovokia and Edouard (Dumbass) Daladier of France, and refused the deal.

Hitler was crazy, but not stupid. He knew that neither Britain nor France wanted to go to war over this, nor would they want to team up with the totalitarian Soviet Union.

So Hitler played both sides against the middle. Mussolini suggested to Hitler that he propose a four-power meeting between Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.

Oddly, the country whose territory was being demanded - Czechoslovakia - was excluded from the talks. They would exclude from the talks the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia - thus coming up with the Munich Agreement to give the Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia to Germany.

Hitler promised to end his aggression.

You see how that international CRAP works? Oh, they had an agreement. It was nice and legal. It was greatly desired - by all parties - but for different reasons.

THAT is why you NEVER leave your national interest up to other nations.

It's real easy to give away something that isn't yours.

That land was won by Israel, and they'll damned well keep it.

It's a done deal. Get over it.

reply to post by jmdewey60

And by the way.

That God of yours? You speak for yourself.

That God of mine? The same God of Abraham and Isaac. And the Christ.

And Judah.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are already of the devil so I am not preaching to you.
I am preaching to any Christian who might happen upon this thread.
The toleration I am talking about is the toleration of genocide, the toleration that American Christians are guilty of every day that they do not speak up against the criminals taking Palestine from the rightful inhabitants by a people who have no hereditary claim but are Caucasian converts to Judaism.

I was going to let this thread pass, I really was.

Then I saw yet another mortal making policy for his God, instead of it going the other way around. Seems a little bass ackwards.

I presume you have a written exemption from God against the prohibition to judge? If not, it might be a good idea to let Him decide who is "of the devil".

Then you go on to judge the guilt of your fellow Christians. Must be nice work, when you can get it.

Those "rightful inhabitants"? Check again. They gained the land by conquest themselves. Of course, at that time they didn't have YOU about to judge right and wrong FOR them, so I suppose that was OK.

Heredity? If you're a Christian as you claim, you'd best re-check that bible to reacquaint yourself with how that "heredity" thing works according to God's tenets.