K, I will now request that you get off the internet, turn in your cell phone and any portable electronic devises. Also, if you need any medical attention, tell them to use technology from the 1960s.
I shall also request you take up a dictionary and check up on ''Israeli'' and ''American Jew''. What's so hard to understand that the people who invented the technology were NOT Israelis? Jews they may be, but they certainly did not live in Israel.
So, we should have allowed Israel to exist in 1948 because someone foresaw twenty years into the future and realised that Jews in America were going to create splendid technology? All the parts of your argument don't add up.
No, when Hamas comes for peace, Israel should tell them, wait 20 years, and please return all of the 1000 prisoners we released to you for Gilad Shalit. Then we can talk.
Well, were'nt you whining about rocket attacks earlier? And how the Palestinians didn't come to seek peace and that made you angry? So now you're demanding that the Israelis wait longer?
I mean, just how contradictory can you get?
I'm saying that Israel has to do nothing. They don't need any peace treaty. They could just settle the West Bank to Hell and back if they wanted to. It's the Pals who are losing by not going to the table, and if they don't go soon, without preconditions, than they won't have anything to negotiate for.
Well, so why whine daily about the rockets? Why whine that Israel gets extremely bad press from the world and claim the UN is biased? If Israel is alright with all this, and having terrorist attacks forever, then by all means.
Again. Think. Both sides need the peace treaty, and the people of both sides WANT peace. What's the use of being obstinate and being childish by telling a blatant lie?
He didn't say they couldn't stop fighting. He just said that they cannot form a coalition government, because said government would contain terrorists.
By essentially saying they can't form a coalition government, he is most importantly, throwing bricks in the face of democracy, when the Palestinians elected two parties. By deeming that such a merge is impossible and stating that the split must go on, he is in effect saying that the Palestinians cannot put aside their own internal differences, and that their conflict must go on without a solution.
Well, actually, Britain could do whatever the hell they wanted with it. It was never the "Arabs land" or the "Palestinians land." It was Britains. If they wanted to, they could have turned that area into a giant nuke testing zone. Instead, they made the sensible choice of allowing it to be split into two nations. Israel, who declared independence and thus actually became a country, and Palestine, who immediately called upon its "Arab brothers" to "ush the Jews into the sea."
''The Balfour Declaration, made in November 1917 by the British Government...was made a) by a European power, b) about a non-European territory, c) in flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority resident in that territory...[As Balfour himself wrote in 1919], 'The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant (the Anglo French Declaration of 1918 promising the Arabs of the former Ottoman colonies that as a reward for supporting the Allies they could have their independence) is even more flagrant in the case of the independent nation of Palestine than in that of the independent nation of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the countryâ¦The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land,''
Edward Said, ''The Question of Palestine.''
Because the State of Palestine existed so briefly during the War and before it was swallowed up by the Israelis and Arabs, they had no time to invent a constitution, or currency or trappings of a state. The fact is, they existed for a brief time from the Partition.
Secondly, the Palestinian land was never Britain's to give away.
Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: (On Mandates)
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence a
s independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
Britain's rule was limited to administration, and it had no right to meddle in parceling out any of the land of its Mandate and its foreign affairs.
So you mean legally immigrating to a place you want to live is now illegal?
Oh it isn't. But it is illegal when you break immigration quotas and then swell your numbers up to push off the natives. Mexican immigration to America is fine, but if suddenly, thousands appeared at your border, and claimed that since their forebears lived in Texas (Which they did), and claimed your land, how would you feel?
The British government limited Jewish immigration to Palestine with quotas, and following the rise of Nazism to power in Germany, illegal immigration to Palestine commenced.Over 100,000 people attempted to illegally enter Palestine. There were 142 voyages by 120 ships.
Herbert Samuel, a British Jew who served as the first High Commissioner of Palestine, placed restrictions on Jewish immigration ''in the 'interests of the present populationâ and the â absorptive capacity' of the country.''1 The influx of Jewish settlers was said to be forcing the Arab fellahin (native peasants) from their land.
Exactly what were you smoking when you wrote this? This makes as much sense as...well, that's just it. I cannot come up with a more or equally foolish statement.
Well, before asserting someone else is foolish, I suggest reading up to prevent yourself from looking a tad bit ignorant.
Blitzkrieg is a military term, describing all-motorised force concentration of tanks, infantry, artillery, combat engineers and air power, concentrating overwhelming force at high speed to break through enemy lines, and, once the lines are broken, proceeding without regard to its flank.
So. Where does it state land grab again in there? Hmmm?
