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

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 



In the face of increasing violence after World War II, the British handed the issue over to the United Nations. The result was Resolution 181, a partition plan to divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The Jewish state was to receive around 56% of the land area of Mandate Palestine, encompassing 82% of the Jewish population, though it would be separated from Jerusalem, designated as an area to be administered by the UN. The plan was accepted by most of the Jewish population, but rejected by much of the Arab populace. On 29 November 1947, the plan was put to a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the plan, with 10 abstentions. The Arab countries (all of which had opposed the plan) proposed to query the International Court of Justice on the competence of the General Assembly to partition a country against the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, but were again defeated. The division was to take effect as part of a British withdrawal from the territory (to be no later than 1 August 1948[2]), though the UK refused to implement the plan, arguing it was unacceptable to both sides.


Pretty obvious the majority of the population in that region were against the new state of Israel..
Of course there would be war...
Still doesn't alter the fact that Israel was NOT created in a day..
That's mere semantics to attempt to fulfill a prophecy, nothing more...




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

Yes, it DID declare its independence, and the same day was officially recognized by the US and I believe Britain.

No Israel one day, Israel the next day.

One day.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

Yes, it DID declare its independence, and the same day was officially recognized by the US and I believe Britain.
No Israel one day, Israel the next day.
One day.


Many things are "concluded" in one day..
Everybody is even born on one day..
That does not mean the whole scenario only took "one day"
Again, mere semantics...
Though you never consider the many countries that did NOT recognise Israel..
They share a different view...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

It only takes one black cat to prove that not all cats are white.

It only took one nation - especially a permanent member of the Security Council to recognize them, and it was a done deal. A complete surprise to the world, even the residents and neighbors. And even more surprising was the rapid recognition. Never before or since.

I wish I had your talent.

Eyes that work, but can't see.

Ears that work, but can't hear.

A noodle that gets blood, but cannot think.

Whatever. You just go on in your little sliver of the world and keep on trucking.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

It only takes one black cat to prove that not all cats are white.

It only took one nation - especially a permanent member of the Security Council to recognize them, and it was a done deal. A complete surprise to the world, even the residents and neighbors. And even more surprising was the rapid recognition. Never before or since.
I wish I had your talent.
Eyes that work, but can't see.
Ears that work, but can't hear.
A noodle that gets blood, but cannot think.
Whatever. You just go on in your little sliver of the world and keep on trucking.


Pretty obvious you are a "one eyed' Israel supporter..
Twist facts and history all you wish..
Facts never change..

Insults are a good sign of someone that is loosing a debate..
You shine at that.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

No twisting any facts.

Just pointing out a few things since the preacher man began bringing them up.

Prophecies. Not just one. Many.

The best part? Those supposed Palestinians? To be completely destroyed. The Jordanians? Their land empty.
Gaza - completely destroyed of inhabitants. Egypt - destroyed. Syria - destroyed and empty of people and Damascus will disappear overnight.

Now that's what the unfulfilled prophecies state.

They also told of the new nation of Israel, and other prophecies that Israel would kick the ass of those who rise against her, told of the new Israel turning the desert green - on and on and on.

That's just what the prophecies say.

Read 'em any way you want. Been dead-on so far.

Oh. If it makes you feel any better - a third of Israel alone will survive.
edit on 22-1-2011 by FarArcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by backinblack
 

No twisting any facts.

Just pointing out a few things since the preacher man began bringing them up.

Prophecies. Not just one. Many.

The best part? Those supposed Palestinians? To be completely destroyed. The Jordanians? Their land empty.
Gaza - completely destroyed of inhabitants. Egypt - destroyed. Syria - destroyed and empty of people and Damascus will disappear overnight.

Now that's what the unfulfilled prophecies state.

They also told of the new nation of Israel, and other prophecies that Israel would kick the ass of those who rise against her, told of the new Israel turning the desert green - on and on and on.

That's just what the prophecies say.

Read 'em any way you want. Been dead-on so far.

Oh. If it makes you feel any better - a third of Israel alone will survive.
edit on 22-1-2011 by FarArcher because: (no reason given)


Yes and all that has happened so far can easily be put down as "self fulfilling"
Can you atleast accept that that is possible even if you don't agree that's how it happened?

The rest, well we have yet to see..



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher


It only takes one black cat to prove that not all cats are white.

It only took one nation - especially a permanent member of the Security Council to recognize them, and it was a done deal..

It only takes one nation - allllrighty then!


Map showing states which have recognised or have special diplomatic arrangements with the State of Palestine or some other Palestinian delegation
from wikipedia

Just to get back on topic. Hey, is that China? Hey, is that Russia?
edit on 22-1-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


I take the view that peace can not be had with the zionists, they are not interested. We saw how these wretched creatures even vandalised the Oslo Agreement during its creation and afterward. The US bribes the Egyptian to the tune of two billion dollars, with weapons, and soft loans, etc in order to keep the peace with Israel and the zionists undermine this expensive effort by having a massive spy network in that country.

Israel has the initiative and all the power in world to make peace but instead it is unrelenting in its ethnic cleansing. Its zionist supporters in Israel and abroad are rapacious, watchful, and vicious creatures that attack any detractors of the zionist edifice.

When the US and Western Europe are relegated irrelevant, this will be the time when the settler state will be dismantled. We can rightfully say that Israel was created by force in 1948 and has been committing suicide since then. Israel is creating the conditions of its own demise.

It simply is an immense tragedy that the US has forsaken large tracts of Africa, the Middle East and South America for the sake of that crumby little country populated by criminals. Israel's gift to the US are legions of enemies that really should be the US's natural allies.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Ilovecatbinlady because: typo



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
My position is that we are still dealing with people. I've noticed a couple of times on different threads that someone has responded to me, "Zionism was until there was a state, now it's nationalism that many Israelis have." That sounds to me like a pro-Israel 'post-Zionist', as they're called. Which describes many in Israel and in the U.S.

It would be nice if post-zionists felt free to voice their opinions, but the anti-zionist on the one hand labels the person and attacts, and the rabid pro-ethnic cleansing zionist on the other side labels him and attacks. So he doesn't raise his head. We miss out on what he would have said. I find this regrettable.

I read stories of the Knesset moving further and further to the ethnic cleansing settler movement, and 'investigating', ie persecuting, those who favor universal human rights and peace and two-states. This happens in the US too. The illegal settlement movement gets tons of tax-free funding without any accountability, and the human rights groups get cut off, due to the political clout of the Jewish and Christian Zionist Alliance that seems to run the country.

It's turning into a civil war within the Jewish community, in Israel and in the U.S. fighting for funding, fighting for lobbying clout. The human rights group seems at a disadvantage right now, I hope that changes. I really do.

We can only hope that the far outdated colonial model of Western nations micromanaging the affairs of others goes away finally.

For purposes of disclosure: I used the J Street lobby legislative alert service to send an e-mail to my representatives one time. I was added automatically to their e-mail list even though I unchecked the appropriate box. I've been reading the e-mails they send. So I'm somewhat under the influence, as it were. They are 'Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace'. I am pro-people, pro-peace. A subtle difference.

I hope also that it is becoming more and more clear that the Christian Zionists are not good allies for Israel. They would like to see all that prophesied destruction come to pass, just so they can have another physical proof that they are correct. Pushing for war. Hmm, doctrinal correctness more important than human life.

The sign of Jonah. Jonah felt that his personal correctness was more important than people's lives. I think mercy should count more than human sacrifice.
edit on 22-1-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

The sign of Jonah. Jonah felt that his personal correctness was more important than people's lives. I think mercy should count more than human sacrifice.
This is what makes your posts so worthwhile reading. This sort of analysis that cuts right to the heart of the matter. © ® pthena. I will make sure I credit you if I ever use your quotes. I have 170 downloads for my radio show for its first week, according to the statistics kept by Blogtalkradio. I might use your quote, or you could call in and say it yourself. Just asking, since I need callers. I had to call a friend yesterday and ask him to call so I could have a guest. I would even invite pro-zionists to call in and say how I am wrong. I had a couple callers that dropped off when I tried to put them on. Something I leaned from being a listener is that for some reason, people will call in just to listen. Maybe they have a really bad connection, or they are away from a computer and use their cell phones just to listen. At least someone was listening live, which I often wonder about.
edit on 22-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 
Your concept of God is different from mine and even though your claim may be technically correct, that there is only one God, I would still have to say your God is a different God than the one I believe in.
I imagine the difference may come from which attributes of, or which expectations from that god concerning the behaviour of potential followers, that said followers take as their personal mission statement.
I would prefer the concept of glorifying God by demonstrating the mercy of God.
To take up the theme that pthena brought up.
Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
That is a quotation from Jesus, who I would suggest to anyone claiming to be a Christian, to take as the authority in religious matters.
How I would apply it to the current situation is that being cruel to Palestinians for the goal of building a temple would be anti-christian.

Edit to add a comment:
I just head this quote on the radio,
Our lives begin to end the day we decide to become silent on the things that matter.
That was Martin Luther King.
edit on 22-1-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I admire and respect Israel for many reasons, but primarily because I love a nation with courage and the ability to defeat overwhelming numbers of attackers time and again.

I highly respect the British contingent who stood at Rourke's Drift and held on against overwhelming odds.

Same with Henry's men-at-arms and longbowmen at Agincourt.

Alexander at Arbela.

The 101st at Bastogne.

Any army can win a fight while it has its legs under it. But few can win when the legs are gone and only courage of determination remains.

What I detest is the weak who with words and ill-intent would destroy, diminish, or give to the weak what has been won through valor, courage, and determination.

Before Israel, the land was a waste.

Now, increasingly, it's green, it's productive, and it's vastly improved.

There will be no Palestine within the West Bank. It's not going to occur, and if it does, it will be the death knoll of those who would live there as the Muslim fundamentalists will HAVE to attack Israel.

Give them enough rope . . .



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
I admire and respect Israel for many reasons, but primarily because I love a nation with courage and the ability to defeat overwhelming numbers of attackers time and again.
I highly respect the British contingent who stood at Rourke's Drift and held on against overwhelming odds.
Same with Henry's men-at-arms and longbowmen at Agincourt.
Alexander at Arbela.
The 101st at Bastogne.
Any army can win a fight while it has its legs under it. But few can win when the legs are gone and only courage of determination remains.
What I detest is the weak who with words and ill-intent would destroy, diminish, or give to the weak what has been won through valor, courage, and determination.
Before Israel, the land was a waste.
Now, increasingly, it's green, it's productive, and it's vastly improved.
There will be no Palestine within the West Bank. It's not going to occur, and if it does, it will be the death knoll of those who would live there as the Muslim fundamentalists will HAVE to attack Israel.
Give them enough rope . . .


Seems obvious there is a big difference between you and me..
You LOVE war..I don't.....



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by FarArcher
 





I admire and respect Israel for many reasons, but primarily because I love a nation with courage and the ability to defeat overwhelming numbers of attackers time and again.


You "admire" Israel because you are a zionist Jew. You make it seem that you merely observe as a disinterested party and you have come to the conclusion that Israel is admirable and to be respected.


Israel has been attacked once and it was in 1973 War led by Egypt to liberate stolen land. The rapacious zionist state has been attacking its neighbours and the Palestinian people since the 1940s. The 1948 war was a war of zionist conquest, and the 1967 Zionist war was a war borne of some demented Woody Alanesque existential fear that let to Israeli violence.

What about the more recent Israeli war on the Lebanon in 2006 and the horrendous Operation Cast Lead blood bath? There was the zionist murder of 8 Turks on the Gaza Flotilla and the nasty murder of that Palestinian in his hotel room by a zionist Kidon Unit.

With Israel, it is always kill, kill, kill.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
reply to post by FarArcher
 





I admire and respect Israel for many reasons, but primarily because I love a nation with courage and the ability to defeat overwhelming numbers of attackers time and again.


You "admire" Israel because you are a zionist Jew. You make it seem that you merely observe as a disinterested party and you have come to the conclusion that Israel is admirable and to be respected.


My, how we love to jump to assumptions and misapply worn-out labels!



Israel has been attacked once and it was in 1973 War led by Egypt to liberate stolen land.


Factually incorrect, which we call 'round here not just a lie, but a DAMN lie!

1948

1967

1973

That's just the more major ones, and doesn't take into account the various bombings, school bus shootings, etc. Learn first, before you attempt to teach.



The rapacious zionist state has been attacking its neighbours and the Palestinian people since the 1940s. The 1948 war was a war of zionist conquest, and the 1967 Zionist war was a war borne of some demented Woody Alanesque existential fear that let to Israeli violence.


Lots of cute catch phrases there, but nothing of substance. How is it you can pack so much hate into a single individual?



What about the more recent Israeli war on the Lebanon in 2006


You mean the response to rocket attacks? THAT action? You're actually nervy enough to call that a "war"?



and the horrendous Operation Cast Lead blood bath?


You mean the response to rocket attacks from the OTHER end of the country? That operation? Probbly better to let the "Palestinians" just kill off those mean old "rapacious zionist conquistadors", eh? You don't really have to answer that. Your answer is already present in every speck of venom that drops from your teeth in this thread.



There was the zionist murder of 8 Turks on the Gaza Flotilla


That has been legally analyzed to death. There was no "murder" involved.



and the nasty murder of that Palestinian in his hotel room by a zionist Kidon Unit.


I'm not familiar with that. Don't have an opinion.


With Israel, it is always kill, kill, kill.


Unlike those "peaceful Palestinians", with whom it's always "bomb bomb bomb" and "shoot shoot shoot". oh, wait....



edit on 2011/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 

BackinBlack, I was a soldier, and no, I don't love war. As a soldier, I hated it more than you as I invested a lot more than you, and it cost me personally a whole lot more than you.

So don't go telling me what I love and what I don't.

I said I respect a nation that can win in spite of overwhelming odds. Surrounded too?

And this wasn't luck.

On May 15, 1948, the day the surrounding nations attacked Israel, Azzam Pasha, the Secretary General of the Arab League said, "This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

They were attacked by a coalition of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

This new nation of Israel had no vehicles, no tanks, no aircraft, and literally bought some surplus weapons from the Czechs. And they beat all these well-established nations!

God, you gotta love it!

Threatened with massacre - attacked by hordes - and win? Damn, man! That's courage. Guts. Determination. The sign of some canny men. Every good thing in a man enabled them to prevail.

Same thing in 1967, but this time there were multiple threats and promises to wipe out Israel and make the ground run with their blood from Syria, Egypt, and even Jordan.

And they too, even though they heavily outnumbered Israel in every category, plus able to come at Israel from three sides - and once again they get slaughtered?

They became the slaughter-ees rather than the slaughter-ors?

Then the dumbasses had to attack Israel again in 1973.

You see, stupid people are a bit slower to realize things. Really stupid people take decades.

Those that aren't killed.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by nenothtu
 
Your concept of God is different from mine and even though your claim may be technically correct, that there is only one God, I would still have to say your God is a different God than the one I believe in.


Now THERE is something we can agree on!




I imagine the difference may come from which attributes of, or which expectations from that god concerning the behaviour of potential followers, that said followers take as their personal mission statement.
I would prefer the concept of glorifying God by demonstrating the mercy of God.


Yes, but that line of thought, limiting oneself to a single aspect of a God, makes of him a unidimensional picture of a multidimensional living thing. More simply put, you miss out on a lot of what a God IS when you limit him to a single line of thought, ignoring all others. It's sort of like trying to confine God to a box of our own making.



To take up the theme that pthena brought up.
Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
That is a quotation from Jesus, who I would suggest to anyone claiming to be a Christian, to take as the authority in religious matters.


That is true. So is "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". All things in moderation - and proper context. As an aside, I have not claimed, nor do I claim, to be a Christian. I am nowhere near "good" enough to meet the standards of most of the Christians of my acquaintance. I do the best I can, and rely on God to handle what I can't. That makes me pretty decidedly non-christian these days.

I wonder if it would make a difference in your perspective if I told you I was at one time a Muslim? Not that I'm saying that, mind you. There are folks about who will kill you for saying something like that.



How I would apply it to the current situation is that being cruel to Palestinians for the goal of building a temple would be anti-christian.


My goal is not to build a temple, it is to allow the State of Israel to live at peace. What they do with that peace might or might not include a temple, but that's their lookout, not mine. It would be nice of the Waqf to allow free access to the temple mount for all religions concerned with it, so that they could worship as they choose there, but that will never be.

On that subject, though, if Israel is so rapacious, how is it that the Muslims still control the Temple Mount? Seems like from a lot of what I'm seeing in this thread, that would have been dealt with long ago...

But no, I'm not after building any sort of temple. It's my understanding that each man carries his own temple with him, so why would I want to build another that I can't take wherever I go?

No, "Palestinians" piss me off for other reasons altogether, in no way related to a new temple.



Edit to add a comment:
I just head this quote on the radio,
Our lives begin to end the day we decide to become silent on the things that matter.
That was Martin Luther King.


And that is the precise reason I could no longer stomach silently reading this thread.


edit on 2011/1/22 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Ilovecatbinlady
 

Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not Jewish. Some Scot, Irish, and Cherokee. And a whole lot of SOB.

Your grasp of history (if you're American) is a testament to the fruits of Johnson's Great Society, and the plummeting decline of the education system in America.

Your grasp of history is a national embarrassment, wherever you're from.

You apparently get all your history from Gazan comic books.

Not even BackinBlack is so stupid as to support your claim that Israel was only attacked once.

Maybe you need to stick to threads you know something about, as it's gotta be embarrassing to make such blatant, false errors of fact.

You see, when you say something totally inaccurate, it automatically negates anything else you say, as such misstatements are the equivalent of saying, "Ignore me, 'cause I'm such a retard!"

I just know you're momma is proud.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FarArcher
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.




Jordan had no right to negotiate land that did not belong to Jordan, just as Israel does not. This is not a hard concept to grasp, is it? If you don't own something, then you have no rights to it. I can't sell your car, you can't rent out my house, and neither of us can cede US territory to Morocco.






top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join