Australian Politics Forum

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46508
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #975 - Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

Jordan IS Palestine.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #976 - Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84775
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #977 - Aug 31^st, 2023 at 6:19am

Palestine is not a geographical area with defined borders... it is now Israel and partly Jordan...

What is amazing about this endless argument is how so many dispute the foreign interference in establishing Israel, but never the same influence in creating all the other Arab states... and when the Arab states seek a little 'adjustment' those foreign influences go to war with them...

Not much has changed, eh? The Middle East is still divided up according to someone else's ideas.... however - since Jews predated 'Palestinians' and 'Palestinians' are equally welcome inside Israel's borders (but not the other way around), the predominance of Judaism/Jews in their own ancient lands is nothing to complain about.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #978 - Aug 31^st, 2023 at 11:54am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 6:19am:

Palestine is not a geographical area with defined borders... it is now Israel and partly Jordan...

The UN still holds to UN res 242, re Palestine.

Even if the resolution was was deliberately rendered unworkable by US zionists.

Quote:

What is amazing about this endless argument is how so many dispute the foreign interference in establishing Israel, but never the same influence in creating all the other Arab states... and when the Arab states seek a little 'adjustment' those foreign influences go to war with them...

Post 1946, the rules changed ("the inadmissibility of conquest by force":UN Charter) - even if only on paper.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46508
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #979 - Aug 31^st, 2023 at 2:35pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Why would you reward the aggressors in the 1967 war with giving back control to them of strategic territorie like Gaza and WB which did not comprise their sovereign territories but were occupied by them?
These are not conquered territories of sovereign nations. They were last part of a sovereign entity under the Ottoman Empire but never for a day since then.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46508
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #980 - Aug 31^st, 2023 at 2:39pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Why would you reward the aggressors in the 1967 war with giving back control to them of strategic territorie like Gaza and WB which did not comprise their sovereign territories but were occupied by them?
These are not conquered territories of sovereign nations. They were last part of a sovereign entity under the Ottoman Empire but never for a day since then.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #981 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:22pm

Frank wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 2:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Why would you reward the aggressors in the 1967 war with giving back control to them of strategic territorie like Gaza and WB which did not comprise their sovereign territories but were occupied by them?

UN 242 (ruined by the US) did not give back control of Palestine to "initiators" of the war, it laid out the path to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispuite ongong since 1947-8.

Quote:

These are not conquered territories of sovereign nations. They were last part of a sovereign entity under the Ottoman Empire but never for a day since then.

They are occupied territories of the proposed Palestinian state.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46508
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #982 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:24pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:22pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 2:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Why would you reward the aggressors in the 1967 war with giving back control to them of strategic territorie like Gaza and WB which did not comprise their sovereign territories but were occupied by them?

UN 242 (ruined by the US) did not give back control of Palestine to "initiators" of the war, it laid out the path to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispuite ongong since 1947-8.

Quote:

These are not conquered territories of sovereign nations. They were last part of a sovereign entity under the Ottoman Empire but never for a day since then.

They are occupied territories of the proposed Palestinian state.

Who occupied them before 1967? Why?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #983 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:35pm

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 12:22pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 31^st, 2023 at 2:39pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 12:12pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:54am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 27^th, 2023 at 11:46am:

Frank wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 5:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Aug 26^th, 2023 at 3:15pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 24^th, 2023 at 8:12pm:

Is the existence of Israel, within ANY borders, acceptable to Muslims?

Yes; after being FORCED to accept Israel's existance by force of superior arms, Muslims/Palestinians are ready to accept the post 1967 - UN 242- outlined borders.

The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination."

Misinformation: if the Israelis had been prepared to hand back the lands occupied (in 1967), the PLO would have accepted UN 242:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/legal-and-political-magazines/un-resolution...

The wording of the resolution was deliberately non-specific in its recommendations, requiring the involved parties to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution. An earlier draft put forward by the USSR with support from the Arab states that required Israel to fully withdraw from all territories occupied after June 4, 1967 was vetoed by the United States of America, who were in favor of a less binding resolution. As a compromise, the British representative, Lord Caradon, put forward a draft that referred to the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The main innovation in this draft was the removal of the words "all the" from the previous draft, thereby refusing to make a definitive statement about exactly which territories should be returned. The British draft, however, added the statement "emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," thereby codifying the United Nation's position on the occupation and annexation of land through armed conflict, and pointing to the need for Israel's complete return of the conquered territory. The British draft was adopted as resolution 242 and the statement on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war has since been referenced repeatedly as protecting the land rights and integrity of nations and their citizenry in the event of an armed conflict.

So the US zionists won the day - and caused the continuation of the conflict to this day.

Handing it all back to the previous occupying powers, Jordan and Egypt, that attacked Israel in order to annihilate it?

No, you other lying POS. Returnng to the USSR proposed settlement, accepted by the Arabs.

Quote:

Jordan IS Palestine.

Palestine is Palestine.

Why would you reward the aggressors in the 1967 war with giving back control to them of strategic territorie like Gaza and WB which did not comprise their sovereign territories but were occupied by them?

UN 242 (ruined by the US) did not give back control of Palestine to "initiators" of the war, it laid out the path to a permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispuite ongong since 1947-8.

Quote:

These are not conquered territories of sovereign nations. They were last part of a sovereign entity under the Ottoman Empire but never for a day since then.

They are occupied territories of the proposed Palestinian state.

Who occupied them before 1967? Why?

Egypt and Jordan, because Israel and Palestine went to war in 1947-8, because the UNSC wasn't able to establish and maintain peace between Israel and Palestine.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 46508 Gender:	Re: Zionism Reply #984 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:42pm Quote: Egypt and Jordan, because Israel and Palestine went to war in 1947-8 Oh? So Palestine DID exist and it attacked Israel. Then Egypt and Jordan sneaked in and occupied Palestine. Your idea, no doubt.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #985 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 3:11pm

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:42pm:

Quote:

Egypt and Jordan, because Israel and Palestine went to war in 1947-8

Oh? So Palestine DID exist and it attacked Israel.

Wrong again, the Arabs rejected the partition plan; and zionist gangs expelled Palestinians.

Quote:

Then Egypt and Jordan sneaked in and occupied Palestine.

Your idea, no doubt.

Wrong again; Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and Gaza while Israel was expelling palestinians from Israel, post 1947-8.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46508
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #986 - Sep 1^st, 2023 at 3:34pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 3:11pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:42pm:

Quote:

Egypt and Jordan, because Israel and Palestine went to war in 1947-8

Oh? So Palestine DID exist and it attacked Israel.

Wrong again, the Arabs rejected the partition plan; and zionist gangs expelled Palestinians.

Quote:

Then Egypt and Jordan sneaked in and occupied Palestine.

Your idea, no doubt.

Wrong again; Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and Gaza while Israel was expelling palestinians from Israel, post 1947-8.

YOU said Palestine and Israel went to war.
As if Palestine existed.
As if it wasn't the Arab countries that attacked Israel.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12973
Gender: male

Re: Zionism
Reply #987 - Sep 2^nd, 2023 at 11:20am

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 3:34pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 3:11pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 1^st, 2023 at 1:42pm:

Quote:

Egypt and Jordan, because Israel and Palestine went to war in 1947-8

Oh? So Palestine DID exist and it attacked Israel.

Wrong again, the Arabs rejected the partition plan; and zionist gangs expelled Palestinians.

Quote:

Then Egypt and Jordan sneaked in and occupied Palestine.

Your idea, no doubt.

Wrong again; Egypt and Jordan occupied the WB and Gaza while Israel was expelling palestinians from Israel, post 1947-8.

YOU said Palestine and Israel went to war.
As if Palestine existed.
As if it wasn't the Arab countries that attacked Israel.

The Arab countries rejected the UN partition plan, but Zionists began a slaughter of Palestinians in the area designated as Israel, in 1947-8. The chance to establish two states post 1967 via UN242 was destroyed by the partisan US which muddied the wording of UN 242.

Back to top

IP Logged

wombatwoody

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3210
Wombat NSW

Re: Zionism
Reply #988 - Sep 2^nd, 2023 at 9:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2023 at 11:20am:

Zionists began a slaughter of Palestinians in the area designated as Israel

At least 200 Palestinians were killed by Zionist gangs in the village of Tantura, which was razed in 1948.

aljazeera.com

22 Jan 2022

The massacre of Tantura took place on the night of May 22-23, 1948, according to Palestinian historians.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has called for the formation of an international commission to investigate the massacres committed by Israel in the Palestinian village of Tantura in 1948.

The call came after Israeli daily Haaretz reported on Thursday the discovery of a mass grave in Tantura village of Palestinians killed by Zionist gangs in 1948, when the modern state of Israel was formed.

Palestinians say multiple massacres of Palestinians by Zionist gangs took place in Palestinian villages during the 1948 war in a bid to forcefully expel at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and land, a tragedy Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or catastrophe.

“The crimes of the occupation did not stop at the year 1948, but are still continuing in a racist and hateful manner, which calls for the opening of investigations into these crimes,” the PA Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Saturday.

The statement continued, “What is required is a broad international campaign to bring justice to the Palestinian victims and to punish Israeli officials and the official Israeli institution that continues to conceal and cover up the ugliness of these crimes and massacres.”

The statement continued, “What is required is a broad international campaign to bring justice to the Palestinian victims and to punish Israeli officials and the official Israeli institution that continues to conceal and cover up the ugliness of these crimes and massacres.”

It added that a documentary titled Tantura is due to be aired online next week, noting that testimonies of Israeli soldiers who participated in the massacre will also be featured.

Rawan ‏ روان
@RiverToSea48

This photograph of Palestinians commemorating the Tantura massacre in 1947 while israelis relax on the beach is the perfect encapsulation of what israel was built on and what it continues to be

Back to top

We are benefiting from ... the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.

Benjamin Netanyahu, quoted in Ma’ariv, 16 April 2008

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49075 At my desk.	Re: Zionism Reply #989 - Sep 2^nd, 2023 at 9:36pm Quote: At least 200 Palestinians were killed by Zionist gangs in the village of Tantura, which was razed in 1948. Muhammad killed more Jews than that in a single day. 1400 years ago. Then made a religion out of it.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged