Hamas mass-murderer Ahlam al-Tamimi

rapul

boetstark wrote: »

Go read the reasons behind the occupation of the west bank and other territory. Something to do with a buffer between Israel and a previous unprovoked attack. Stupid people.

Something to do with a buffer and a previously unprovoked attack? And whos stupid with a comment like that? Sooner schools are back the better.

boetstark

rapul wrote: »

Something to do with a buffer and a previously unprovoked attack? And whos stupid with a comment like that? Sooner schools are back the better.

Agh go away with you and read up on all the wars from 1948 onwards. You are the same as the ones around limerick with Palestinian flags on cars. Clueless.
Typical spoofer. Ridicules the comment without being able to offer one fact in return.

riffmongous

boetstark wrote: »

Agh go away with you and read up on all the wars from 1948 onwards. You are the same as the ones around limerick with Palestinian flags on cars. Clueless.
Typical spoofer. Ridicules the comment without being able to offer one fact in return.

No go on and explain what you are referring to

rapul

boetstark wrote: »

Agh go away with you and read up on all the wars from 1948 onwards. You are the same as the ones around limerick with Palestinian flags on cars. Clueless.
Typical spoofer. Ridicules the comment without being able to offer one fact in return.

Ok then , mature response by the way but go on explain your wealth of knowledge on the situation since you started this attack on me and the limerick people

boetstark

rapul wrote: »

Ok then , mature response by the way but go on explain your wealth of knowledge on the situation since you started this attack on me and the limerick people

Please , I apologise if I insulted you but there is a general lack of knowledge out there re this situation. The 1948 un two state agreement was accepted by Israel. They declared independence and were attacked by the Arab States including Palestinians. When this war ended in 1949 with victory for Israel, israel kept lands which were not part of the original UN boundaries as a buffer against future attacks from hostile neighbours. And it has been a constant tit for tat after that. Problem is alot of Arab states have refused to recognise israels right to exist. Jews have been living with arabs in that area going back to the ottoman empire. They do not have a right to all the area , but they were entitled to their independent state as per 1948 UN , without being constantly under threat.
1956 which another poster mentioned , egypt Jordan and Syria blockaded the suez canal to Israeli ships . They were given numerous chances before force was used.
The 6 day war , once again surprise attack by egypt , Syria, Libya, Jordan, morroco and palestinians on israel. Numerous atrocities against captured Israeli soldiers including public beheadings contrary to Geneva convention.
Yom koppur war 1976 all the above again attacked israel backed by Cuba and Iraq among others.
This has turned israel into the aggressive country it is to this day.
God sake Anwar Sadat of egypt was assassinated because he eventually recognised israel and took up Israeli invitation to speak at knesset.
I asked a lady in crescent shopping centre why she constantly had a Palestinian flag flying from her car. Her words she believed after 2nd world war American Jews invaded Palestine and drove out the Arabs.
I was lost for words.

jmayo

Israel was founded in a war, with enemies all around it.
Hell before it was founded Palestinians under had attacked and killed Jewish settlers.
One of the first attacks after the adoption of Resolution 181(II) by the United Nations General Assembly (Partition of Palestine) was an attack in Nov 1947 by Palestinians on two buses full of Jews killing 7.
Then it descended into tit for tat attacks with guys like the Stern Gang (Lehi and Irgun) leading attacks on Palestinians.
They had carried out numerous assassinations on British officials.
BTW one Lehi leader was Yitzhak Shamir who would become PM.
It is important that people note these tough guys were to become leaders in Israel and set the tone for the way the state security services were to deal with their enemies that still permeates to this day.

Some people probably don't realise the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem operated propaganda for the Germans and Italians in WWII.
Hell he helped recruit Bosnian muslims into the Waffen SS.
I'll bet a few people didn't know that either.
Yep the epitome of the blond blue eyed Ayrian military had muslims in it's ranks.
Charming chap to have on the other side, ah but sure all the bad guys were on the Jewish side. :rolleyes:

BTW check out ex German WWII soldiers like Fawzi al-Qawuqji, Abd al-Qadir who fought on the Palestinian side in 1948.

Now one can argue that Jews had no right to be there, but what was supposed to happen to Jews after WWII and the holocaust.
Should all the survivors have gone back to the countries they were from, to often live beside the people that had massacred their relatives and helped turn them into the Nazis?
And yes lets not pretend that did not happen throughout Central and Eastern Europe.

Jews had been arriving in Palestine fleeing pogroms in Russian Empire pre WW1 and then fleeing Germany in 1930s.
And here is the kicker a lot of people probably don't know either, they didn't just arrive and rob the land off the Palestinians by force, they had been buying the land from absentee landlords. Then they removed the Palestinian tenants.

Posters like ohninn (can never get that spelling right ) would have Israel return to Golan (yes you mentioned earlier) to a long time enemy state that used it's prominent position for years to shell Northern Israeli farms and towns.
Seriously only a complete eejit would hand over such a military advantageous position to a would be enemy.

And as for West Bank, will the Jordanians were quick to land grab it themselves in 1948.
And the Gaza was under Egyptian control.


This is the long propagated myth that all the other Arab states give a flying fook about the Palestinians and their cause for a state.
They don't, the grand plan during and after WW1 had been for a Pan Arab state, not independent states which resulted after Lebanon, Syria and Jordan got independence.
The Palestinians are often used as a distraction to get their own populations to not consider the shyte they live under.
Does anyone think that if Israel had not existed that there would be a state called Palestine ?

hamsin

jmayo wrote: »

Does anyone think that if Israel had not existed that there would be a state called Palestine ?

Without Israel there would not be "Palestinians" either. The word was not in use before 1960.

Zebra3

UN resolution was illegal under international law as it denied the Palestinian people the right to national self-determination as per the UN Charter.

It was a supremacist, colonial attempt to remove the native people and to steal their land for European settlers.

boetstark

Zebra3 wrote: »

UN resolution was illegal under international law as it denied the Palestinian people the right to national self-determination as per the UN Charter.

It was a supremacist, colonial attempt to remove the native people and to steal their land for European settlers.

Which UN resolution

riffmongous

boetstark wrote: »

Please , I apologise if I insulted you but there is a general lack of knowledge out there re this situation. The 1948 un two state agreement was accepted by Israel. They declared independence and were attacked by the Arab States including Palestinians. When this war ended in 1949 with victory for Israel, israel kept lands which were not part of the original UN boundaries as a buffer against future attacks from hostile neighbours. And it has been a constant tit for tat after that. Problem is alot of Arab states have refused to recognise israels right to exist. Jews have been living with arabs in that area going back to the ottoman empire. They do not have a right to all the area , but they were entitled to their independent state as per 1948 UN , without being constantly under threat.
1956 which another poster mentioned , egypt Jordan and Syria blockaded the suez canal to Israeli ships . They were given numerous chances before force was used.
The 6 day war , once again surprise attack by egypt , Syria, Libya, Jordan, morroco and palestinians on israel. Numerous atrocities against captured Israeli soldiers including public beheadings contrary to Geneva convention.
Yom koppur war 1976 all the above again attacked israel backed by Cuba and Iraq among others.
This has turned israel into the aggressive country it is to this day.
God sake Anwar Sadat of egypt was assassinated because he eventually recognised israel and took up Israeli invitation to speak at knesset.
I asked a lady in crescent shopping centre why she constantly had a Palestinian flag flying from her car. Her words she believed after 2nd world war American Jews invaded Palestine and drove out the Arabs.
I was lost for words.

Spoofer.. with some very basic mistakes in there.

Odhinn

boetstark wrote: »

Go read the reasons behind the occupation of the west bank and other territory. Something to do with a buffer between Israel and a previous unprovoked attack. Stupid people.

A buffer consisting of hundreds of thousands of civillians in apartment complexs and semi-detached housing that they sell abroad as well as internally......not very convicing "buffer" wise.

Odhinn

hamsin wrote: »

Without Israel there would not be "Palestinians" either. The word was not in use before 1960.

It was in use by at least the early 1900's.

jmayo wrote:

Israel was founded in a war, w....................... existed that there would be a state called Palestine ?

So do you or do you not support the colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc

hamsin

Odhinn wrote: »

It was in use by at least the early 1900's.

Proof?

Timberrrrrrrr

boetstark wrote: »

Please , I apologise if I insulted you but there is a general lack of knowledge out there re this situation. The 1948 un two state agreement was accepted by Israel. They declared independence and were attacked by the Arab States including Palestinians. When this war ended in 1949 with victory for Israel, israel kept lands which were not part of the original UN boundaries as a buffer against future attacks from hostile neighbours. And it has been a constant tit for tat after that. Problem is alot of Arab states have refused to recognise israels right to exist. Jews have been living with arabs in that area going back to the ottoman empire. They do not have a right to all the area , but they were entitled to their independent state as per 1948 UN , without being constantly under threat.
1956 which another poster mentioned , egypt Jordan and Syria blockaded the suez canal to Israeli ships . They were given numerous chances before force was used.
The 6 day war , once again surprise attack by egypt , Syria, Libya, Jordan, morroco and palestinians on israel. Numerous atrocities against captured Israeli soldiers including public beheadings contrary to Geneva convention.
Yom koppur war 1976 all the above again attacked israel backed by Cuba and Iraq among others.
This has turned israel into the aggressive country it is to this day.
God sake Anwar Sadat of egypt was assassinated because he eventually recognised israel and took up Israeli invitation to speak at knesset.
I asked a lady in crescent shopping centre why she constantly had a Palestinian flag flying from her car. Her words she believed after 2nd world war American Jews invaded Palestine and drove out the Arabs.
I was lost for words.

Do you believe the Geneva convention should be upheld no matter what?

Irish Praetorian

Zebra: Alright? Different people have different opinions - not sure where to go from that.

Odhinn wrote: »

Sanctions would be at least a start. Unfortunately the US veto on the UNSC prevents it being a matter of international law, but that shouldn't stop support for BDS. It took many years for BDS to take effect against Apartheid South Africa and we should expect no better here.

But therein lies the problem, while sanctions might be 'a start' (something we will return to) it is already general practice among the nations of the world to seek the protection of a UNSC member from such sanctions, so Russia in the case of Syria, the US in the case of Israel and China for Myanmar.

Going back to the issue of starting things though, have you a clearer idea of what terms you would like to implement sanctions on and what you believe ought to be fulfilled before they are restricted? In the case of the BDS movement their demands seem to be a full Israeli withdrawal from the 67 borders, a generic 'end to racism' directed against Arab Israelis and a right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Now setting aside the second aim (which seems to have all the hallmarks of a perpetual campaign about it), I fail to see how a mass retrenchment of every Jew in Palestine and then the further admixture of any number of descendants of Palestinians exile into Israel proper is likely to lead to anything good. More than likely, it would produce further tensions within Israel, create a fresh Gaza in the West Bank, and no doubt lead to a fresh range of complaints against Israel for continuing to exist. That is not a set of objectives and results I could stand behind, and I'm not sure why you could either.

Zebra3

boetstark wrote: »

Which UN resolution

181.

jmayo

Zebra3 wrote: »

UN resolution was illegal under international law as it denied the Palestinian people the right to national self-determination as per the UN Charter.

It was a supremacist, colonial attempt to remove the native people and to steal their land for European settlers.

Aren't you quick to use UN resolutions to back up your argument when it suits.

Odhinn wrote: »

It was in use by at least the early 1900's.

So do you or do you not support the colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem etc

No I don't support the settlements in West Bank.
Besides most are, or at least used to be, by orthodox Jews which I rank along with a lot of muslims (yep even what we term moderate muslims can be quite entrenched in their views) as a royal pain in the ass.
Anytime people take religion too seriously they are trouble.
And lots of the more secular Israeli Jews can't stand them much either before it is their sons and daughters that have to join the IDF and often pick up the pieces for their shyte stirring.

Anyone remember mass murderer American born Baruch Goldstein who carried out the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in Hebron, killing 29 and wounding 125 Palestinian worshippers?
And he was a fooking doctor.
Then again they have been some very nasty doctors down the years.

They also have been doing a lot of shyte stirring and attacking Palestinians in East Jerusalem.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-hundreds-of-ultra-orthodox-teens-attack-palestinians-in-jerusalem-1.8003161

And they are a backwards bunch of footwits who have more in common with what they see as their enemies than they would ever admit.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33752111

As for East Jerusalem, I don't think it is ever going to be anything but Israeli at this stage.
Ideally it should have been an open city of sorts, but will the UN (peace keeping nations such as ourselves) be willing to suffer casualties trying to stop suicide bombers or the little shyteheads referenced above.
It could have ended up a ghost city of sorts like in Cyprus.

And I definitely don't back the move by that clown in the White House by moving embassies to Jerusalem.

Odhinn

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Zebra: Alright? Different people have different opinions - not sure where to go from that.



But therein lies the problem, while sanctions might be 'a start' (something we will return to) it is already general practice among the nations of the world to seek the protection of a UNSC member from such sanctions, so Russia in the case of Syria, the US in the case of Israel and China for Myanmar.

Going back to the issue of starting things though, have you a clearer idea of what terms you would like to implement sanctions on and what you believe ought to be fulfilled before they are restricted? In the case of the BDS movement their demands seem to be a full Israeli withdrawal from the 67 borders, a generic 'end to racism' directed against Arab Israelis and a right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Now setting aside the second aim (which seems to have all the hallmarks of a perpetual campaign about it), I fail to see how a mass retrenchment of every Jew in Palestine and then the further admixture of any number of descendants of Palestinians exile into Israel proper is likely to lead to anything good. More than likely, it would produce further tensions within Israel, create a fresh Gaza in the West Bank, and no doubt lead to a fresh range of complaints against Israel for continuing to exist. That is not a set of objectives and results I could stand behind, and I'm not sure why you could either.

The "right to return" has been quietly ditched by the PLO during negotiations. A one state solution is naive and unworkable.



There should be a general retreat behind the 1967 lines of border, with doubtless horse trading over swaps of land/population in specfic instances, with the end goal a geographically contiguous palestinian state.

Odhinn

hamsin wrote: »

Proof?

"Palestinian" was used to refer to the nationalist concept of a Palestinian people by Palestinian Arabs in a limited way until World War I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#cite_note-palestineeb-43


And was a term used frequently in the paper "Falastin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falastin

Odhinn

jmayo wrote: »

Aren't you quick to use UN resolutions to back up your argument when it suits.



No I don't support the settlements in West Bank.
Besides most are, or at least used to be, by orthodox Jews which I rank along with a lot of muslims (yep even what we term moderate muslims can be quite entrenched in their,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.

Differerent settlements, different ethos. The ones in Hebron are reputedly the worst and most vicious, which is quite a claim to fame.

Irish Praetorian

Odhinn wrote: »

The "right to return" has been quietly ditched by the PLO during negotiations. A one state solution is naive and unworkable.

There should be a general retreat behind the 1967 lines of border, with doubtless horse trading over swaps of land/population in specfic instances, with the end goal a geographically contiguous palestinian state.

Yeah that is more or less where I stand at the moment about what ought to be. Now with the hard part done, we need merely convince the people on the ground

hamsin

Odhinn wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#cite_note-palestineeb-43


And was a term used frequently in the paper "Falastin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falastin

I didn't find anything about "term used frequently" in your second link. But even if you are correct, the use of the term by one newspaper doesn't prove its "wide use".
The word "Palestinians" was not in use before 1960.

end of the road

hamsin wrote: »

I didn't find anything about "term used frequently" in your second link. But even if you are correct, the use of the term by one newspaper doesn't prove its "wide use".
The word "Palestinians" was not in use before 1960.

still doesn't change the fact palestine exists, and ergo palestinians are real.
remember, there was no state of israel before 1948.

Zebra3

jmayo wrote: »

Aren't you quick to use UN resolutions to back up your argument when it suits.

And aren't you quick to ignore a debate on UN resolutions when it shows that Israel has no legal basis to exist?

jmayo

Zebra3 wrote: »

And aren't you quick to ignore a debate on UN resolutions when it shows that Israel has no legal basis to exist?

Are you seriously now saying Israel has no right to exist.
I know you are a lover of a lot of Middle Easterners, but you are now sounding like one of the Ayatollahs claiming Israel has no right to exist and the Israelis should be driven into the sea.

And if you go down the rabbit hole about states being established without legal rights then good luck to ya.

And it is even funnier when you go through the list of the 31 nations that plays along with your assertion and refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist.
Fooks sake it's a whos who of failed and despotic states, funnily enough nearly all of them majority muslim states.

21 Arab League members: Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen;
9 members of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Niger, and Pakistan; and Bhutan, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela.

You are in good company there. :rolleyes:

TheRepentent

Odhinn wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#cite_note-palestineeb-43


And was a term used frequently in the paper "Falastin"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falastin

You're wasting your time engaging that Hasbara shill Odhinn.

hamsin

end of the road wrote: »

still doesn't change the fact palestine exists, and ergo palestinians are real.
remember, there was no state of israel before 1948.

"Palestine" exists only on paper.
Yes, there was no state of Israel before 1948. But Jews knew their original name long before this date and they didn't need to adopt a foreign word to name themselves.

Timberrrrrrrr

hamsin wrote: »

"Palestine" exists only on paper.
Yes, there was no state of Israel before 1948. But Jews knew their original name long before this date and they didn't need to adopt a foreign word to name themselves.

Is that why you chose a Hebrew username?

Odhinn

hamsin wrote: »

"Palestine" exists only on paper.
Yes, there was no state of Israel before 1948. But Jews knew their original name long before this date and they didn't need to adopt a foreign word to name themselves.

Whats your position on the colonisation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem et al?

TheRepentent

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is that why you chose a Hebrew username?

Either that are the poster is full of hot air :P