gazza Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Reports by Syrian media claimed that between six and 20 protesters were killed, with 227 others wounded. 500 Syrian-Palestinians were reported to have arrived at the border, hiding from IDF fire in a ditch dug by the army after the Nakba Day protests on May 15, approximately 20 meters from the border fence. link still on going. and we are worried about a few bikers dieing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Understandable after all there must be 2 dozen or so throwing stones at the IDF, i mean what else can they do but shoot them dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share Posted June 5, 2011 well they are crossing the border with out permission, have been warned not to so what they expect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 The Golan Heights are outside the internationally recognised borders of Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 According to the Palestinians there is no such place as Israel. Just as according to Muslims Jesus was a prophet of Islam. As for borders, it's generally accepted (in the civilised world) that war defines borders. Were it not so Poland (for one) would be a very different shaped country and as for Belgium there's a country that is still in a state of flux. I spent some time in Israel while studying and learned a great deal about the country, its history, and its people both jew and arab. If the part of the middle east that is the historical homeland of the jew is considered after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the way that the British Mandate region was carved up if anything the borders of Israel should INCLUDE the Palestinian lands. After all we created the Arab sector from our mandated lands that were to be divided between jew and arab. At first we called it Trans Jordan, later to become Jordan as a result of our unilateral (and probably illegal) recognition of Jordan as a national state, but not Israel The jew had to fight for what was his by right and by declaration from the League of Nations and later the UN. The terms of our mandate were specific. We didn't stick to them out of political expedience and continued ownership of the Suez Canal. Should the Israelis use deadly force to defend their country? Why not? They are not Christians and their attackers would certainly use deadly force in order to wipe Israel off the map which is their stated objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 It isn't, of course, generally accepted in the "civilised world" that wars define borders. Even for a poster well known for unbelievable stupidity, this is an exceptionally dense remark. The preamble to UN Security Council Resolution 242 specifically recognises the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through conflict. What the Israelis are doing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is common theft. They are nasty little thieves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 It isn't, of course, generally accepted in the "civilised world" that wars define borders. Even for a poster well known for unbelievable stupidity, this is an exceptionally dense remark. The preamble to UN Security Council Resolution 242 specifically recognises the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through conflict. What the Israelis are doing in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is common theft. They are nasty little thieves Seeing the Palestinians rejected 242 it sort of falls at the first gate! But having read UN resolution 242 what it says is rather interesting. Let's start with “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,” This reinforces a general principle, it is not a fundamental and absolute requirement. Not also the deliberate omission of the word “the” prior to “territories” so placing NO requirement on Israel to return to pre '67 borders, borders that were actually simply those that existed in '47 when the Israelis stopped ther defensive actions against the defeated attacking arab forces, stopped in the hope that peace would be the outcome. Then note the use of the word “should” . Should, NOT must. The next paragraph is a laugh in itself for the simple reason that the “belligerents” by not recognising Israel let alone any borders are bound by nothing. That situation exists even today. In my opinion although there are no “good” guys in the whole region there are certainly gradations of not good and in my opinion the Israelis are the least not good of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Israel is the equivalent of a tick infested dog, squeezed in amongst a tick infested pack of dogs. They are all just arabs, and since when have arabs lived in peace with anyone. Zionist arabs are the most devious and dangerous arabs of all the arab cross-breeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Wow - some true colours being shown here. 242 is a statement of general principle, whether that fits in with your ill-considered (but so often rehearsed) arguments about the word "the". It's dead easy: if you are trying to acquire territory through conflict, you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Wow - some true colours being shown here. 242 is a statement of general principle, whether that fits in with your ill-considered (but so often rehearsed) arguments about the word "the". It's dead easy: if you are trying to acquire territory through conflict, you can't. Recent European history alone would indicate that such is far from the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You've changed your tune, Spook. I'm always fascinated when you find these little schizophrenias. They make you wonder if you are dealing with a person expressing their true beliefs, or what? Quite definitely you have changed your online personna the longer you have posted here Spook. **** I am not a troll but I do have experience with the jew as a neighbour and as an employer. And I detested both. Israel is NOT here to stay. It cant exist for much longer specially because the US of A is becoming les jew owned and jew driven with the increase in the number of immigrants who don’t care for jews any more than I do. The jews probably would destroy what they cant take with them, thats what they did in other parts they had to give back but they didn’t in Gaza because of course money is more important than principal and so they left some buildings including some odl greenhouses alone when they were paid to. The only solution is for the Jews to GTFO of where they have no right to be. It will happen, it has to happen, it should happen, it would be better to get it over with sooner rather than later. so what your saying spook if they get rid of isreal then all the fighting will stop, they will just let the jews live where they did and no go in and kill the lot of them The main cause for fighting would be taken away because the land would be returned to the rightful owners. If the rightful owners came up with rules that the jew would live by then that would be up to the rightful owners first to set out those rules and the jew next to deciude if he would live by them. If the rightful owners didn’t want the jew in their lands then that would be up to them. Their land, their choice. If the jew didn’t want to live by the rules, then get out. Theres enough places the jews own or controls for them to go to. There are ethnic jews and there are jews that are of various ethnic backgrounds and just jew by religion. Ethnic jews are the same as any other ethnic people. If they settle in a country then they become whatever that country is or are you saying that an ethnic colored person living in the USA cant be an American? Why should a bi-national state be created anyway? There was a state already in existence. There is no reason at all why what was created can’t be un created especially as it was created in an immoral way and even an illegal way. What is needed is the complete dismantle on Israel as a country and the whole land restored to the Palestinian people and for them to decide who they will allow to remain or get rid of. Zionism was everything about the making of a jew state on land that would be the jew homeland. It always was and it always will be. I am serious. The jew is found throughout the world and has the nationality of the country the jew was born in. The jew dont need a separate country, it’s a religon ffs not a nationality. The people living in that part of Palestine who have a right to be there and that has been called Israel do not need jews in there. Call it what you want, it’s still Palestine and zionism is a Europe invention by jews and as for welfare the jew has a strange idea of welfare when it involves shelling hospitals in Gaza and schools in Gaza and innocent people in Gaza. Same with the wall. If the jew needs a wall to protect him then he’s doing something wrong. If he wasn't he wouldnt need a wall would he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 You've changed your tune, Spook. I'm always fascinated when you find these little schizophrenias. They make you wonder if you are dealing with a person expressing their true beliefs, or what? Quite definitely you have changed your online personna the longer you have posted here Spook. Where's the disparity? I wrote in this thread "In my opinion although there are no “good” guys in the whole region there are certainly gradations of not good and in my opinion the Israelis are the least not good of them all." That isn't supporting or approving of what is taking place, and as with the other comments that I've made on this thread simply offering a perspective on people in the region and what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Stop spinning in the wind you knob, chinahand has nailed you with your diametrically opposed quotes, your are obviously trolling, thats what china is getting at,and thats what your doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 Stop spinning in the wind you knob, chinahand has nailed you with your diametrically opposed quotes, your are obviously trolling, thats what china is getting at,and thats what your doing. You really should learn the difference between personal opinion about a thing, and comment about events from a position of detachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauld Posted June 6, 2011 Share Posted June 6, 2011 "personal opinion" OR "position of detachment" They are your diametrically opposing quotes. One thread you claim white amd on another you claim black figuratively speaking. Your either an idiot, a troll, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.