stranger little Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I know quite a bit of Jewish voters who are appalled by the Isreal settlement issue. As well every political party in Canada recognizes that Israel has the right to defend itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well...we agree that the legal-eagles have different points of view re: Israeli settlements in the WB. Well done. Now...how about the other questions? When was the West Bank a nation? How did the Israelis end up with it? Why is this such a grey area? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well...we agree that the legal-eagles have different points of view re: Israeli settlements in the WB. Well done.Now...how about the other questions? When was the West Bank a nation? How did the Israelis end up with it? Why is this such a grey area? Never was a nation, and there is no grey area. That is the location of the terrorists who claim to be moderates, the radical ones live in Gaza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 We can also discuss the meanings of plain English words, like e.g. "consensus", only let's do it one question at a time.. And the current question being (while it's still fresh in our memory.... hopefully): What has our advocated approach in the conflict done in real, practical terms about massive and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements so far, why we should keep going that same way in the future, and how it is going to promote the agenda of peace, trust and so on (or if not peace, etc then what is it likely to promote?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 We can also discuss the meanings of plain English words, like e.g. "consensus", only let's do it one question at a time.. And the current question being (while it's still fresh in our memory.... hopefully):What has our advocated approach in the conflict done in real, practical terms about massive and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements so far, why we should keep going that same way in the future, and how it is going to promote the agenda of peace, trust and so on (or if not peace, etc then what is it likely to promote?). Spare me the weasel words. The settlements are neither massive nor illegal. You may want them to be illegal. Various groups may call them illegal. But that has yet to be determined by 'consensus' legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Spare me the weasel words. The settlements are neither massive nor illegal. You may want them to be illegal. Various groups may call them illegal. But that has yet to be determined by 'consensus' legally. Only because it looks like you aren't going to respond in a legible manner, I couldn't really afford to direct any more of my attention to that significant topic, but maybe in the future... think remote one.. really.. we could have a very productive discussion, OK? Edited July 16, 2009 by myata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Only because it looks like you aren't going to respond in a legible manner agree with me, I couldn't really afford to direct any more of my attention to that significant topic, but maybe in the future... think remote one.. really.. we could have a very productive discussion, OK? If you want blind agreement to your various wants and desires re: Israel, post at rabble. They'll all agree Israel is always wrong and you'll all be able to have a 'productive discussion'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 No, only want, or rather, interested in, a legible and meaningful discussion, where clear questions are answered, facts recognized, and arguments are countered with logic and facts. As quite obviously nothing of the kind has been delivered so far, and with no reason to expect that much of the kind woud be forthcoming, you'll certainly understand me in my reluctance to continue this line of discussion for the obvious reason that it wouldn't be a worthy investment of my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 No, only want, or rather, interested in, a legible and meaningful discussion, where clear questions are answered, facts recognized, and arguments are countered with logic and facts. As quite obviously nothing of the kind has been delivered so far, and with no reason to expect that much of the kind woud be forthcoming, you'll certainly understand me in my reluctance to continue this line of discussion for the obvious reason that it wouldn't be a worthy investment of my time. You can ask DogOnPorch to go posting at: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/index.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 You can ask DogOnPorch to go posting at:http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/index.php Conservatives? Didn't they find a Creationist to be Science Minister? No thanks. Keep your looney tunes to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 What has our advocated approach in the conflict done in real, practical terms about massive and ongoing expansion of illegal settlements so far, why we should keep going that same way in the future, and how it is going to promote the agenda of peace, trust and so on (or if not peace, etc then what is it likely to promote?). In practical terms, it ended the settlements in Gaza. Now, do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Well...we agree that the legal-eagles have different points of view re: Israeli settlements in the WB. Well done.Now...how about the other questions? When was the West Bank a nation? How did the Israelis end up with it? Why is this such a grey area? Unfortunately there seems to be a concerted effort among pro-Palestinian groups to make-believe that the history of the region before 1948 was considerably different than it was. The closest the West Bank, or the Palestinian territories ever got to being a state was the 1947 resolutions on the matter. Prior to that, it was a British mandate, because the former owners, the Ottoman Empire had collapsed. The neighboring Arab states decided they didn't like the scheme the UN had come up with, thought they could drive the Israelis into the seas and seize the land, I guess. In the normal scheme of things, rejecting a diplomatic package and then making war upon the other side to seek its destruction would abrogate any requirement by the other side, if they managed to defeat the belligerents, to accept any and/or all portions of the former diplomatic package. The way the rules of war have played for centuries is that if you make war on a neighbor, and that neighbor captures territory, that neighbor has a right to that territory, or to reparations, or to a combination of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Indeed...the Arab-Israeli confllict has got to be the first in history to allow 'do-overs' for the aggressors. 'Well...that invasion of the Zionist Entity failed. Can we have our land back so we can try again?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 (edited) Conservatives? Didn't they find a Creationist to be Science Minister? No thanks. Keep your looney tunes to yourself. Creationism comes from Israel. Edited July 16, 2009 by benny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 In practical terms, it ended the settlements in Gaza. OMG, Dobbin, I'm so sorry but if you think that settlements "ended" you must have been severely misinformed (by your strategist one may think). According to the facts recorded in this reality, the settlements have grown 70% since year 1993, and we discussed the most recent massive addition of 2,500 homes (=2,500 families = (approx) 2,500 x 3 = 7,500, i.e roughly the number of settleres that's been moved out of Gaza, in just one most recent project. Quelle surprise! Mais without doubt a great success aussi!), and we were discussing it not couple of days back, but I understand, poor memory. And so, as I already explained, that you can only hold a tiny piece of reality in the focus of your attention, is the problem with your vision (I wish I could help; i.e. I'm trying to) but not necessarily that of the reality. And therefore the question remains (you know which one; or shall I repeat yet again) and therefore Now, do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization? sorry, but you haven't earned your piece of cake just yet. Keep trying, Dobbin, we know you can do it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Creationism comes from Israel. No it doesn't. Creationism as we know it comes from heartland America from dingbats just like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 OMG, Dobbin, I'm so sorry but if you think that settlements "ended" you must have been severely misinformed (by your strategist one may think). According to the facts recorded in this reality, the settlements have grown 70% since year 1993, and we discussed the most recent massive addition of 2,500 homes (=2,500 families = (approx) 2,500 x 3 = 7,500, i.e roughly the number of settleres that's been moved out of Gaza, in just one most recent project. Quelle surprise! Mais without doubt a great success aussi!), and we were discussing it not couple of days back, but I understand, poor memory. And so, as I already explained, that you can only hold a tiny piece of reality in the focus of your attention, is the problem with your vision (I wish I could help; i.e. I'm trying to) but not necessarily that of the reality. And therefore the question remains (you know which one; or shall I repeat yet again) and therefore sorry, but you haven't earned your piece of cake just yet. Keep trying, Dobbin, we know you can do it! There are NO settlements in Gaza anymore...beautiful places that they were. Screw your cake. We already know the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 OMG, Dobbin, I'm so sorry but if you think that settlements "ended" you must have been severely misinformed (by your strategist one may think). The settlements in Gaza didn't end? Amazing. sorry, but you haven't earned your piece of cake just yet. Keep trying, Dobbin, we know you can do it! I think we can safely safely say that you believe that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 No it doesn't. Creationism as we know it comes from heartland America from dingbats just like yourself. reported Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordiecanuk Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Zionists used terrorism to win state hood for Israel, taking it from the Palestinians. Now the Palestinians are using terrorism to try and get it back. The British set the tone by caving to terrorists in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 reported Just you wait 'til school's out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Zionists used terrorism to win state hood for Israel, taking it from the Palestinians. Now the Palestinians are using terrorism to try and get it back. The British set the tone by caving to terrorists in the first place. Irgun and the Stern Gang did not win statehood for Israel. Nor was it taken from the 'Palestinians'. It was voted on by UN members of the time. This arose from both Arabs and Jews petitioning the British and French for a state in the area (Balfour & Sykes-Picot) out of the former Ottoman Empire which held the area since (at least) the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The Jews agreed on the Partition while the Arabs under the ex-Nazi Grand Mufti and other hot heads opted for war. This even though (Trans) Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were already formed (for the Arabs) out of these former Ottoman lands. The famous 1948 War ensued with the Arabs attacking and losing badly. Israel cemented its existence. Edited July 17, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Irgun and the Stern Gang did not win statehood for Israel. Nor was it taken from the 'Palestinians'. It was voted on by UN members of the time. This arose from both Arabs and Jews petitioning the British and French for a state in the area (Balfour & Sykes-Picot) out of the former Ottoman Empire which held the area since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. You give the UN too much credit. It was not the UN that made Israel a state, but the Jews that lived there. The UN did not and would not have lifted a finger to ensure Israel's statehood. It was just a bunch of dusty old men quibbling over pieces of paper, much like the UN of today, except they were less misguided then than they are now. It is not the power of the UN to create nations or states, such power rests only with the peoples who have the will to make for themselves a state. It is then the choice of individual nations whether to recognize a newly proclaimed state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Perhaps...but the UN did vote on the Partition and it passed with a majority. Oddly...Pakistan...just formed via a similar partition, voted against Israel's creation. Do I detect an undercurrent?? Edited July 17, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Perhaps...but the UN did vote on the Partition and it passed with a majority. Oddly...Pakistan...just formed via a similar partition, voted against Israel's creation. Do I detect an undercurrent?? I just don't like when people falsely attribute real changes to the UN. By the time the UN resolution came into effect and the British mandate expired, the existence of a Jewish state in Israel was already an established fact on the ground. States have been coming into existence and disappearing since long before there was any body like the UN to pass resolutions. As for Pakistan... obviously. The Muslims bloc has voted against Israel in every possible vote at the UN. Now if we had a few dozen Jewish states to even the scales... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.