Sorry, but you're a bit clownish.
Scores die in Israeli air strikes
- Thread starter IhabX7
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Sorry, but you're a bit clownish.
then it is a waste of paper really, isn't it. What's the point of 'partial withdrawal' like this - Israel need only withdraw from one squre metre of land and call that 'withdraw'.
Looks like countries were as afraid to put through unbiased resolutions as they are now. I repeat again, according to the UN charter, 'land grab' through war is illegal, and the constant building of settlements suggests it was for expansion rather than for self-defense. Given that, 242 seems a real cop-out.
Well, if so, then we must go back to the 1947 resolution as our template. With allowances made for the 750k Jews kicked out of Arab countries. So really, the 1949 armistice line should be the only logical, non-negotiable line, for lack of another.
There is good reason why the Arabs were unhappy with the original ruling of the UN, Truman's quote:
“I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”
Should give you some insight into their uneasiness in an American led partition of their land.
It's all too easy to agree with a proposal which increases your land share from 10% to over 50% in an area, but to then wonder why the other side aren't that happy with the arrangement and why gradually expanding isn't making them any happier is slightly myopic.
FFS, the otherside weren't happy with ANY jewish state. H
Thats why the 1948 war kicked off. The Arabs rejected the very first resolution (which included yet another palestinian State) and immediately attacked Israel.
First they start a "kill 'em all" war against Israel (1948, 6 vs. 1). Then they lose the war and some land. And then they complain over the loss of land which was a direct result of their lost war
.This would explain why they weren't forcefully assimilated, if keeping them as second class citizens meant that the local Arabs could earn more taxes from then, then the incentive to convert them would be diminished.
First they start a "kill 'em all" war against Israel (1948, 6 vs. 1). Then they lose the war and some land. And then they complain over the loss of land which was a direct result of their lost war
And you still can't see why they were unhappy that the land was split up 55%-45% in favour of the Jews?
“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French...What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct...If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.”
Gandhi 1938
Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia:
"The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1000 years. At the same time we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming to Palestine from Russia, Germany, Austria, Spain, America. The cause of causes could not escape those who had a gift of deeper insight. They knew that the country was for its original sons (abna'ihi l asliyin), for all their differences, a sacred and beloved homeland. The return of these exiles (jaliya) to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually [to be] an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades and in all things connected with toil and labor"
Emir Faisal,King of Greater Syria 1920 wrote:
The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other
No, not with 242.
The language of 242 was deliberately chosen as it was. If the Resolution had said 'all the territories' rather than 'the territories' both Israel and the United States would not have accepted it, and it would have been vetoed. The individuals who drafted 242 interpreted it to mean that the final borders were subject to negotiation.
Jordan has got a free trade agreement in place with the United States so first things first the US would do well to extend that to the Palestinian territories. They also have one with Israel which spills over into the territories reportedly though this would need extending.
there are massive gas resereves off the coast of Gaza bellonging to gaza.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11680
sometimes i think you dont fully undstand issues like this mike, this post is really a no brainer, not trying to be a cnut though, just an observation.
why not simply ask them to not believe in god anymore?
So what point are you trying to make? Are you attempting to discredit his work/mind by making the observation? If you read the 2nd article of his that I posted, you will see that you have done exactly what he says you will do. Because merely to take a position on Israel and publish facts that many may not know immediately makes him anti-semetic
He knows this, its happens to him all the time, indeed as demonstrated on this very board a few times, a neat equation exists: criticize Israel=you are anti semitic
Indeed, he must be a 'white-hater' as some real geniune imbecile described him as in earlier pages on this thread because he dared expose the goings on of people who happen to share the same skin colour as him
Oh, don't tell me, calling someone an imbecile is like calling someone a eejit and makes makes them also anti semetic
One of several problems of Internet forums is that they allow people to post randomly and without context, as you have done in this instance, in an attempt to discredit the factual points that are made in debate. If I may, before I allow you to write off with a few taps from a key board a great man who has a unique body of work behind in within an illustrious and amazing career, lets see what other sources without your (or even my own) bias describe him:
.
My parents welcome me home when I'm in trouble, they've never offered me their house though.
Only that this is more like the parents coming for a visit, and then trying to stay for good.
It is clear from this 1919 agreement that even the Arabs themselves understood the "ancient bonds" between the Jewish people and their homeland. Note also that there is no mention of the "Palestinians". These are referred to simply as "Arabs".
It appears that even the Arabs acknowledged that Palestine did not belong to them (Article II), and that Palestine (Israel) would be established according to the principles of the Balfour declaration (Article III).
Nevertheless, an argument of who is right or wrong means ongoing violence because neither side is going to disappear- at least in the short-term.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, you link to an article by Michel Chossudovsky, which concludes with this advert for one of his books:
"In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky's 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration."
And then you claim I don't understand the issues? I find this odd to say the least.
I don't really follow your point about believing in god? I haven't tried to make any issue of religious belief in this thread; nobody has as far as I can remember.
I knew it was George Bush behind it all.
Exactly! I still remember him sitting in the classroom while being told that the tower was hit. You could just tell that he knew it all along. His eyes... his eyes..
wow ... well we agree on something. Thats a start I guess!
If instead of the Arabs the Israelis were sharing their land with a more secular and practical people, say the Dutch, these probably would protest and stomp their feet for a while, but after some time they would take advantage of having such a neighbour and would be trading happily with mutual benefit.
A “you can’t beat them – join them” sort of philosophy, you know.
In other words, the Palestinians must be one of the most clueless and unpractical people that ever existed in the history of the planet.
My twopence.
A “you can’t beat them – join them” sort of philosophy, you know.
In other words, the Palestinians must be one of the most clueless and unpractical people that ever existed in the history of the planet.
My twopence.
If you are serious, this explains so much, so much.
Ok let's go along with your absurd conspiracy theory for a moment.
Can you please explain why no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq?
If the Bush administration was capable of planning the 9/11 attacks then surely planting a few WMD's in Iraq would be small fry by comparison.
Kinda blows the idiotic theory out of the window doesn't it?
He was being sarcastic.
I think labeling entire peoples as one thing or another is pretty unhelpful. The Palestinians have had some pretty woeful leadership. It's true that they voted for Hamas, it was a very bad decision but the alternative was more years of outrageous corruption under Fatah and stasis in the 'peace process'. The Israelis also elected Sharon, a war criminal, and barring something amazing happening in this war are likely about to elect Netanyahu, a nutjob, again.
As for trade, Israelis and Arabs are perfectly capable of trading with each other - there's trade and movement of labour between Israel and the West Bank, and has been in the past with Gaza. I'm convinced the majority of people on both sides just want a quiet and prosperous life, it's just unfortunately those aren't the people who tend to strive for power.
Okay, well I'm glad to hear it.
The question still stands though for those who believe the Bush admin had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
That is not going to go down well.
He's bang on though. If you elect a terrorist organisation to represent you then it should really come as no surprise when you experience events like the last couple of weeks.
Education has never been a strong point in that part of the world. They're far too busy teaching their children that it's the West and principally the United States who is responsible for their own shortcomings.
Netanyahu a nutjob? Care to explain?
Dude, He wanted to attack Iran. Had he been allowed he could have sparked off world war III!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All borders are held by force and drawn in blood. The British Empire was very good at making sure it was other people’s blood and that those other people paid for the cost of that force themselves. Then again can we really blame them for being the best at the only game in town for a couple of hundred years or so? In a thousand years that Empire will be as meaningful to today’s politics as the Roman one is now. How many enlightened nations came into being through brotherly love, were perfect democracies and would never have used overwhelming force if it held that advantage? Off the top of my head I can't think of any.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you're happy with a nuclear Iran?. The same Iran whose supplying Hezbollah and Hamas?
Interesting.
Everybody wants to attack Iran. Nobody (unless Yank) will.
He's been predicting for years that concessions to the Palestinians would result in rocket launching on Southern Israel. His political rivals, mainly Labour supporting the Oslo agreements, claimed he was trying to intimidate Israelis for his own political interests. Turns out he was quite right, and Peres the Oslo architect has to justify a war trying to prevent a problem of his own making.
There is a good chance Israel still will, they have previously bombed nuclear installations in Iraq and Syria, it's a very nasty situation.
Again, if you elect a President who himself is a war criminal, who him along with his father is responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents in that region as well destabilising it, then dont be surprised if people in that part of the world are taught to hate the United States. Luckily you've (wait not you, you probably voted for that McCain bloke..)...sorry most Americans have realised the damage that Bush has done to the nation and have elected a man who looks like he can possibly fix the US's global image.
So dont give us that "They hate us for no reason!" stance.
War criminal? Interesting, when's the trial?
You're deluded. Anyway, Obama is going to find it hard running. Didn't Al-Qaida already call him out? I didn't vote for him but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus he's already made his stance on the Israel situation known, seems to support them if not in action than in principle.
BTW, Fearless has owned this thread.
You're deluded. Anyway, Obama is going to find it hard running. Didn't Al-Qaida already call him out? I didn't vote for him but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Plus he's already made his stance on the Israel situation known, seems to support them if not in action than in principle.
BTW, Fearless has owned this thread.
Bush IS a war criminal, as was our brilliant Tony Blair, none will obviously go through trial though in the world we live in Today. I wouldnt call myself deluded, you're entitled to your opinion on world affairs but dont even try to dub me deluded due to my differences.
Im not expecting Obama to forge alliances with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations, but im also not expecting him to wage pointless wars in the name of oil. I have no opposition to him supporting Israel either, I fully understand and respect the alliance between the two nations, but from recent events it seems that Obama isnt afraid to demand a ceasefire and criticise the Israelis if he thinks they have been disproportionate in their retaliation. Something Bush hasnt had the balls to do.
Fearless has brought nothing but homour to this thread by the way, quoting random events from history and adopting the "everybody hates jews!" paranoid stance is great comedy.
Why would he? He probably agrees with them, as do others. What takes balls is standing by your beliefs even when they aren't the in thing to do.
Nope, the US was the only member of the UN council to reject a ceasefire...I wonder why.