"U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

"U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:15 pm




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CherkB4XsBk


UN Ambassador Haley: “The Days of Israel-Bashing Are Over”
When it comes to combatting anti-Israel bias at the United Nations, “there’s a new sheriff in town,” United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley proclaimed on Monday at the AIPAC Policy Conference.
Haley cited two episodes that demonstrated her commitment to protecting Israel from unfair attacks. First, she recalled how she blocked the appointment of a former Palestinian Authority official to a high UN post. On Haley’s watch, she said, there will be “no freebies for the Palestinian Authority anymore” until the PA decides to negotiate with Israel in good faith.
Haley also mentioned how she called UN Secretary-General António Guterres and told him to withdraw a UN agency report that described Israel as an apartheid state. Guterres withdrew the report, and the director of the agency that commissioned the report resigned.
Haley touched on the speech she made shortly after attending her first Middle East-related Security Council session, in which she expressed her surprise and shock that the session focused exclusively on Israel’s alleged sins, ignoring issues like ISIS and the Syrian Civil War. Haley recalled that she had heard that anti-Israel bias was an issue at the UN, but “until you hear it and you see it, you can’t comprehend how ridiculous it is.”
She also criticized the nuclear deal with Iran. When it comes to Iran’s behavior, she promised, “We’re gonna watch them like a hawk. We’re going to make sure that every single thing they do is watched, processed, and dealt with.”

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:22 pm

Meh...the days of Israel bashing will continue as long as Israel wants to deprive people of their land.

New sheriffs don't change opinions.

Nikki Haley will last only as long a Trump lasts. I'm guessing impeachment by the end of the year.


Last edited by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:Meh...the days of Israel bashing will continue as long as Israel wants to deprive people of their land.

New sheriffs don't change opinions.


You can be critical all you like of Israel, just as others can.
What she is rightly doing in standing up to the bias of Theocratic and Authoritarian nations continually ganging up on Israel.
Maybe finally, we will see  these countries taken to task for their human rights abuses, which each of these nations protects the other from any condemnation at the UN.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:27 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Meh...the days of Israel bashing will continue as long as Israel wants to deprive people of their land.

New sheriffs don't change opinions.


You can be critical all you like of Israel, just as others can.
What she is rightly doing in standing up to the bias of Theocratic and Authoritarian nations continually ganging up on Israel.
Maybe finally, we will see  these countries taken to task for their human rights abuses, which each of these nations protects the other from any condemnation at the UN.

Israel is a theocratic nation, too. Anyway, Nikki Haley is wholly temporary.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:


You can be critical all you like of Israel, just as others can.
What she is rightly doing in standing up to the bias of Theocratic and Authoritarian nations continually ganging up on Israel.
Maybe finally, we will see  these countries taken to task for their human rights abuses, which each of these nations protects the other from any condemnation at the UN.

Israel is a theocratic nation, too.  Anyway, Nikki Haley is wholly temporary.


See, a perfect example of again pure gibberish being pouted against Israel.

So if they are the most democratic nation in the Middle East, where is your condemnation for all the other nations?

Shall we start also by examine, how under the Palestinian authority, Jews are not allowed to Live, the same under Hamas in Gaza?

Is that not Apartheid and making these lands judenrein?

Where is your condemnation Quill.

Or do you only hold a discrimination against Israeli Jews?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:56 pm

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Israel is a theocratic nation, too.  Anyway, Nikki Haley is wholly temporary.


See, a perfect example of again pure gibberish being pouted against Israel.

Names and faces...

Thorin wrote:So if they are the most democratic nation in the Middle East, where is your condemnation for all the other nations?

I said Israel is a theocratic nation, not democratic. You can't exclude someone on the basis of theology, and still call yourself democratic.

Thorin wrote:Shall we start also by examine, how under the Palestinian authority, Jews are not allowed to Live, the same under Hamas in Gaza?

Is that not Apartheid and making these lands judenrein?

Where is your condemnation Quill.

Or do you only hold a discrimination against Israeli Jews?

I am neither the champion of Palestinians, nor the foe of Israelis. I criticize what I see as wrong on both sides. Personally, I view it as none of our business.

Israel can take care of itself without needs from the US. They seem to be following the Russian example of a criminal political cartel...but, then, so is the US under Trump.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:03 pm

You keep making the same unfounded accusations.

So Israel holds elections, bang goes your poor claim and have Arabs within the Kessnet.

Is provides more rights to its citizens, than any of Arab state for example. This includes women's rights, homosexual rights ( of which Arab homosexuals flee to israel) etc. So every other Arab state fails in this department compared to Israel

So why are singling Israel out, when again it is the only real democracy in the region?

Because of your hate of Israel, that is simple that you gave me some more gibberish to avoid answering the questions.

So lets show how even more Israel provides better religious rights than the EU then shall we?








In a region rife with ironies, one of the least reported is that the same people who lecture to Israel about discrimination are far more discriminatory towards Muslims than Israel is.

There was much coverage about Israel passing a law to limit the heavily amplified Muslim call to prayer to during normal daytime hours. Yet most (if not all) European countries restrict the call to prayer far more. In most European countries, many Muslim communities are so worried about Islamophobic backlash that the amplified call to prayer is not requested to begin with. In places where it is allowed, it is often restricted to Fridays only, or only twice a day in the case of the East London Mosque. In Norway it is limited to Fridays only and cannot exceed 60 decibels.

Even the Netherlands, which explicitly allows the Muslim call to prayer as law, "the way in which it is carried out, the permitted volume and the number of times (it is not normally allowed for all five daily prayers) is pragmatically regulated by the local authority. In Amsterdam, for example, as in many other places, it is only allowed on a Friday, and in all cases there is a decibel limit that must not be exceeded."

All of these laws are far more strict than Israel's.

All of these restrictions in virtually all European countries are far greater than Israel's law. Yet no one speaks about it as a violation of human rights. Only Israel is singled out for its much milder restrictions. And I can tell you that even they are not being enforced yet, as I heard the amplified call to prayer as early as 4:10 AM from my Jerusalem hotel.

Similarly, Israel has no restrictions on Islamic dress. Even the full burqa is allowed. Yet in Europe there are heavy restrictions on the Islamic veil and headcovering:

Several Belgian municipalities have used municipal by-laws on face-covering clothing to ban public wearing of the niqab and burqa.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, lawyers, prosecutors and others employed in judicial institutions can not wear the hijab to work.

In 2016, a legal ban on face-covering Islamic clothing was adopted by the Bulgarian parliament.

The government of Kosovo banned the headscarf in schools in late 2009.

A legal ban of face-covering Islamic clothing was adopted by the Latvian parliament.

In December 2016, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said the wearing of full-faced veils should be prohibited in Germany "wherever it is legally possible".

In Austria, the ruling coalition agreed in January 2017 to prohibit full-face veils (niqab and burka) in public spaces such as courts and schools.

France became the first European country to ban the full-face Islamic veil in public places in 2011.

A law banning the full-face veil came into effect in Belgium in July 2011.

Several towns in Italy have local bans on face-covering veils. 

In Spain, the city of Barcelona announced a ban on full Islamic face-veils in some public spaces such as municipal offices, public markets and libraries in 2010.

In Denmark in 2008, the government announced it would bar judges from wearing headscarves and similar religious or political symbols in courtrooms.

It is illegal to wear a face veil in public in the Tessin region of Switzerland.

The European Court of Justice ruled that employers have the legal right to ban staff from wearing the Islamic headscarf.

Beyond the call to prayer and the restrictions on clothing, Switzerland has banned building minarets on mosques since 2009. Slovakia has passed a law which will effectively ban Islam from gaining official status as a religion. In the French town of Charvieu-Chavagneux, the mayor bulldozed a mosque in 1989 and today Arabic is forbidden to be taught in schools.

Israel has no such restrictions.

Yet the EU spends money to teach Israelis tolerance. Israel has far more Islamic terror attacks than all the European nations combined yet the EU lectures Israel on how it fights terror - in ways that are far more tolerant of Islam than Europe is.

Who should be teaching whom about tolerance? 


http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/03/europe-is-really-islamophobic-compared.html


Its easy to show, that a person like you Quill who fails to condemn other nations, who are human rights abusers and only centers on Israel, shows a clear bias and hate.

That is easy to expcose you on and I even gave you the opportunity to condemn other nations.

This sums you up perfectly, because you sound like a BDS drone






So the question is Quill, do you stand for universal human rights?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:58 pm

Thorin wrote:So Israel holds elections, bang goes your poor claim and have Arabs within the Kessnet.

But who is allowed to vote? Certainly not Muslims. Just because they go through the motions, doesn't mean thay allow everybody in.

Thorin wrote:Israel has far more Islamic terror attacks than all the European nations combined yet the EU lectures Israel on how it fights terror - in ways that are far more tolerant of Islam than Europe is.

Still, that does not justify exclusion of Muslims. Remember, the issue is whether it is democracy, or a theocracy?

Thorin wrote:Its easy to show, that a person like you Quill who fails to condemn other nations, who are human rights abusers and only centers on Israel, shows a clear bias and hate.

That is easy to expcose you on and I even gave you the opportunity to condemn other nations.

This sums you up perfectly, because you sound like a BDS drone

As upset as you get with me and my arguments, the issue is also not about me. I trust, by your change of subject, you concede my point about Israel not being a democracy.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:06 pm

All of Israel's 20% Arabs, which include many Muslims are allowed ty vote

So point debunked again

I guess you are going to say, that the Palestinians do not get to vote, well, Israel has not annexed these territories, as they are there for a future Palestinian nation. These areas also have Palestinian governments, neither of which have held elections since they gained power. Also the Palestinians vote in Palestinian elections.

Muslims are not excluded from voting in Israel

So your charge is again false, inaccurate, and clearly the problem you have, that you buy into nonsense around Israel

The issue is about, how easily it is for me to expose the fact, you only ever center on Israel and thus are not a true believer in universal human rights

I have just proved that, by your ignoring that Israel is indeed a democracy and is ganged up Muslim majority and authoritarian nations to constantly castigate Israel in the UN. Even though many of these countries are committing some of the worst human rights abuses. Thus help protect each other from any criticism and resolutions, as they can out vote the democratic nations
Hence why people are now standing up to the abuse within the UN.,

Now Israel should still face criticism and condemnation for wrongs, but not have more resolutions passed against them, than all the other nations combined.

Like I say, this is about you and the fact, you avoided answering my questions, because you refuse to condemn nations that are real human rights abusers. Because you wish to see Israel attacked constantly by authoritarian nations gang up on them, as its fits your ideological hate.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:18 pm

Thorin wrote:Like I say, this is about you and the fact, you avoided answering my questions, because you refuse to condemn nations that are real human rights abusers. Because you wish to see Israel attacked constantly by authoritarian nations gang up on them, as its fits your ideological hate.

Oh really? So you want to write my posts for me? You want to determine my politics? My morality? My emotions?

Isn't that a bit dictatorial? You have an emotional tantrum whenever anyone disagrees with you. Why can't you just accept people for who they are?

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Roughly 21% of Israel’s more than eight million citizens are Arabs. The vast majority of the Israeli Arabs - 81% - are Muslims. Arabs in Israel have equal voting rights; in fact, it is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women may vote. Arabs currently hold ten seats in the Knesset. Israeli Arabs have also held various government posts.


Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel. At the time of Israel’s founding, only one Arab high school was operating, today, there are hundreds of Arab schools. Most Arabs attend these schools.


The sole legal distinction between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel is that the latter are not required to serve in the Israeli army. This was to spare Arab citizens the need to take up arms against their brethren. Nevertheless, many Arabs have volunteered for military duty and the Druze and Circassian communities are subject to the draft.




So the above proves why people like Quill are easily exposed for their hateful bias of Israel

He claimed Israel bans Muslims from voting

This was of course absolute bollocks

So why did he do it?

The reasons I have explained already

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:28 pm

Thorin wrote:So the above proves why people like Quill are easily exposed for their hateful bias of Israel

He claimed Israel bars Muslims

This was of course absolute bollocks

So why did he do it?

The reasons I have explained already

Now you are on your soap box, didge.  Apparently, it's more important to you to malign me than to argue for the defense of Israel's position.

Go ahead...it's of no consequence to me.  I've said enough to win the point.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So the above proves why people like Quill are easily exposed for their hateful bias of Israel

He claimed Israel bars Muslims

This was of course absolute bollocks

So why did he do it?

The reasons I have explained already

Now you are on your soap box, didge.  Apparently, it's more important to you to malign me than to argue for the defense of Israel's position.

Go ahead...it's of no consequence to me.  I've said enough to win the point.


Well did you or did you not like authoritarian member states of the UN, making up lies about Israel?

Yes

You claimed it was not democratic, based off again a lie

That according to you, Israel bans Muslims from voting.

A lie.

You see, you and these human rights abusive nations, share a common trait. To continually attempt to deligitimize Israel based off lies.

If you had admitted you were in error on your false claims that Israel bans Muslims from Voting and your false claim it was a Theocracy. Then I could simple put it down to your ignorance about Israel and not an attempt to deligitimize Israel off lies.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:37 am

Thorin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Now you are on your soap box, didge.  Apparently, it's more important to you to malign me than to argue for the defense of Israel's position.

Go ahead...it's of no consequence to me.  I've said enough to win the point.


Well did you or did you not like authoritarian member states of the UN, making up lies about Israel?

Yes

You claimed it was not democratic, based off again a lie

That according to you, Israel bans Muslims from voting.

A lie.

You see, you and these human rights abusive nations, share a common trait. To continually attempt to deligitimize Israel based off lies.

If you had admitted you were in error on your false claims that Israel bans Muslims from Voting and your false claim it was a Theocracy. Then I could simple put it down to your ignorance about Israel and not an attempt to deligitimize Israel off lies.

Didge, you are drunk. You're not even conjugating your verbs correctly: "did you not like authoritarian member states..." 'Did you...states??'

Talk in the morning, when I can understand you.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by WhoseYourWolfie on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:17 am

Smile

Nikki Haley is a delusional twat...

Whowhat was she before getting this job,  anyways ?

_________________
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.
The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.
Henry David Thoreau
avatar
WhoseYourWolfie

Posts : 6298
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 60
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:24 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Well did you or did you not like authoritarian member states of the UN, making up lies about Israel?

Yes

You claimed it was not democratic, based off again a lie

That according to you, Israel bans Muslims from voting.

A lie.

You see, you and these human rights abusive nations, share a common trait. To continually attempt to deligitimize Israel based off lies.

If you had admitted you were in error on your false claims that Israel bans Muslims from Voting and your false claim it was a Theocracy. Then I could simple put it down to your ignorance about Israel and not an attempt to deligitimize Israel off lies.

Didge, you are drunk.  You're not even conjugating your verbs correctly: "did you not like authoritarian member states..."  'Did you...states??'

Talk in the morning, when I can understand you.

So now further unfounded accusations to cover for your lies.

I can live with poor grammar, but can you live with either being a hateful liar or incredible ignorant and hateful?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:54 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So Israel holds elections, bang goes your poor claim and have Arabs within the Kessnet.

But who is allowed to vote?  Certainly not Muslims.  Just because they go through the motions, doesn't mean thay allow everybody in.

Could you explain what you mean Quill? I think that Muslims are allowed to vote.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:30 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But who is allowed to vote?  Certainly not Muslims.  Just because they go through the motions, doesn't mean thay allow everybody in.

Could you explain what you mean Quill? I think that Muslims are allowed to vote.

Not in the west bank. Most Muslims living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have municipal voting rights only, There's is the land that is being annexed by settlers.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you explain what you mean Quill? I think that Muslims are allowed to vote.

Not in the west bank.  Most Muslims living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have municipal voting rights only,  There's is the land that is being annexed by settlers.

Which elections do you mean? Can Jews in the West Bank vote?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:43 pm

All Jews can vote.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:All Jews can vote.

In which election? Do you mean all Jews or all citizens of Israel?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:20 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:All Jews can vote.

In which election? Do you mean all Jews or all citizens of Israel?

Well, we're talking about Israel, not the whole world.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

In which election? Do you mean all Jews or all citizens of Israel?

Well, we're talking about Israel, not the whole world.

Which elections in Israel? You're being very evasive.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:35 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, we're talking about Israel, not the whole world.

Which elections in Israel? You're being very evasive.

The Knesset. Specifically, the Israel lebensraum...note that Arabs are not allowed to vote:

Haaretz wrote:Germany Bashes Israel: Land-grab Law Deeply Shakes Our Faith in Israel's Commitment to Peace
'Our trust in the Israeli government's commitment to the two-state solution has been fundamentally shaken,' German Foreign Ministry spokesperson says.

Germany severely condemned a new Israeli law which enables the expropriation of private Palestinian land on Wednesday, saying that that the law's enactment by the Knesset on Monday has shaken Germany's faith in Israel's commitment to peace. 

"Many in Germany who stand by Israel and feel great commitment toward it find themselves deeply disappointed by this move," the German Foreign Ministry spokesperson said. 

"Our trust in the Israeli government's commitment to the two-state solution has been fundamentally shaken ," he said. 

The new law allows the state to declare private Palestinian land on which settlements or outposts were built, “in good faith or at the state’s instruction” as government property, and deny its owners the right to use or hold those lands until there is a diplomatic resolution of the status of the territories.

The measure provides a mechanism for compensating Palestinians whose lands will be seized. A landowner can receive an annual usage payment of 125 percent of the land’s value as determined by an assessment committee for renewable periods of 20 years, or an alternate plot of land if this is possible, whichever he chooses.

Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit continues to oppose the bill, and figures in his circle stressed that he does not intend to defend it, even in its current formulation, in the event that petitions against it are filed in the High Court of Justice.

In his remarks, the German spokesperson noted Mendelblit's reservations regarding the law and said that it would be best to legally examine the law as soon as possible. 

"We hope and look forward to the Israeli government renewing its commitment for the two-state solution to be reached through negotiations, and prove it by actual steps in accordance with the Middle East Quartet's demand," he said. 

"After the puzzling remarks by several cabinet ministers who have publicly called for the annexation of parts of the West Bank, and are preparing bills for that purpose, this is now a question of credibility," he said. 

Germany's strong remarks joined criticism of the law by the European Union, Britain, France, Turkey, Jordan and the UN secretary general, who have all spoken out against the law in the past two days. 

France called on Israel to "take back" the law "to honor its international commitments" and Britain said the law "damages Israel’s standing with its international partners" and threatens "the viability of the two-state solution."

At the same time, a summit between Israel and the European Union scheduled for February 28 had been postponed following the passage of the controversial law, diplomats told Haaretz. The meeting was meant to mark the tightened cooperation between Israel and the EU and to set out a work plan and priorities for improving relations between the sides.

The U.S., for its part, has kept silent about the new law. A senior official said the U.S. will not respond until Israel's Supreme Court rules on the petition against the law. "This is the first time since 1967 that Israeli civil law is being applied directly to the West Bank, and that Israel's attorney general has stated publicly that he will not defend it in court," he said.

read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.770428


_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Could you explain what you mean Quill? I think that Muslims are allowed to vote.

Not in the west bank.  Most Muslims living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have municipal voting rights only,  There's is the land that is being annexed by settlers.

Can Jews vote in the West bank Palestinian elections?

No

Just as the same as Palestinian Arabs cannot vote for in Israel

This is because the land is under Palestinian authority.

In East Jerusalem, Arabs can and do apply for citizenship

The land is not annexed at all

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:45 pm

Israel does not give Israeli citizenship to West Bank Palestinians because they do not wish to become subject to Israeli law. They want their own state, and Israel is prepared to make an agreement on that basis.

‘Jewish state’ does not mean that Israel is a theocracy (rule by clerics) or a state exclusively for Jews. Israel is a democracy, governed by the rule of law as drafted by an elected parliament, the Knesset. All faiths vote. All enjoy freedom of worship. The Declaration of Independence explicitly provides for the protection of minorities.

Israel does not grant Israeli citizenship to West Bank Palestinians – i.e. give every West Bank Palestinian a vote in Israeli elections, subject to Israeli law, in short, make them Israelis – because that would amount to the annexation of the Territories, making them part of Israel, ending all prospects for a Palestinian state. ‘Israel does not want to do that’, its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said. ‘We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.’ Most Palestinians don’t want to be annexed to Israel either – they want to be citizens of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state, not citizens of Israel
.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:46 pm

Thank you. So Palestinians living in the West Bank cannot vote but Jewish setters living there can. I presume that's because they're citizens of Israel and the Palestinians there are not.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Thank you. So Palestinians living in the West Bank cannot vote but Jewish setters living there can. I presume that's because they're citizens of Israel and the Palestinians there are not.

Correct, just as Jewish settlers cannot vote in Palestinian elections, as they are not Palestinian citizens.

The land is disputed, hence why both sides need to come to an agreement.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Thank you. So Palestinians living in the West Bank cannot vote but Jewish setters living there can. I presume that's because they're citizens of Israel and the Palestinians there are not.

Precisely.  Jewishness is a necessary condition of voting, hence Israel is a theocracy not a democracy.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Thank you. So Palestinians living in the West Bank cannot vote but Jewish setters living there can. I presume that's because they're citizens of Israel and the Palestinians there are not.

Precisely.  Jewishness is a necessary condition of voting, hence Israel is a theocracy not a democracy.

That is again a lie.
So why are Christians, Druze, Muslims etc are allowed to vote?
Hence you are again either ignorant on Israel, after me posting the facts, or deliberately lying, which backs my point, you hate Israel and are attempting to deligitimize them with lies.


Israel is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy. The Arab, Druze and other minorities in Israel are guaranteed equal rights. All citizens vote in elections on an equal basis. Discrimination based on race is against the law. The universities are integrated. Some Israeli towns and cities are mixed Arab-Jewish (e.g. Acre, Haifa, Jaffa, Lod and Ramle). The Israeli Courts are effective in countering unfair discrimination. Israel’s Arab minority participates fully in the political process.

‘Jewish state’ does not mean that Israel is a theocracy (rule by clerics) or a state exclusively for Jews. Israel is a democracy, governed by the rule of law as drafted by an elected parliament, the Knesset. All faiths vote. All enjoy freedom of worship. The Declaration of Independence explicitly provides for the protection of minorities.

Yes, Israel is the national home of the Jewish people. But many states around the world are both national homelands for a majority ethnic or racial group and democracies. Such states are still democracies because of their systems of government and because the rights of the minority are protected.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:31 pm

Thorin wrote:So why are Christians, Druze, Muslims etc are allowed to vote?

In local and municipal elections only. Palestinians who are merely residents cannot vote in the bigger, more significant elections, such as the Israeli Lebensraum law, mentioned above.

This distinction is most relevant to people living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, since it is their land being taken.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So why are Christians, Druze, Muslims etc are allowed to vote?

In local and municipal elections only.  Palestinians who are merely residents cannot vote in the bigger, more significant elections, such as the Israeli Lebensraum law, mentioned above.

This distinction is most relevant to people living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, since it is their land being taken.


Complete gibberish again, they can vote in all elections as Israeli citizen.

Again Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens within the West Bank, because they are under Palestinian authority control. The Israeli settlers are under Israeli control. Some Palestinians can and have under Israel control in East Jerusalem become Israeli citizens. Some do not, as they hope that East Jerusalem, becomes part of the future Palestinian state. 

So you are backing the view, that Israel should allow voting to non-citizens. That do not want Israeli citizenship. Which would actually then mean for this to happen. That Israel annex all the land in the West Bank, ending any hope of a Palestinian state. As you believe non-citizens should have the vote in Israel. By becoming Israeli citizens.
So you want Israel to annex the West Bank

There was me thinking, you were for a two state solution and yet you want Israel to annex all the West Bank.

You mean the law that will be rightly taken down by Israeli's top court?
How even coalition Governments in Israel are not above the law?

Or did you not look past how this law will never stand and you being an expert on law apparently?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/groups-petition-high-court-to-strike-down-outpost-law/

Or that illegal settlements are demolished still?

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-settlers-evicted-20170228-story.html

So there is no Israeli Lebensraum, unless you are advocating the original Jordanian ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem of Jews, making them Judenrein..

It always makes me laugh, how a Californian has the audacity to charge Israel with Lebensraum, when California was annexed by the US.

Does that not make you the descendants of settlers, who did actually ethnically cleanse the indigenous and annex the lands of California? A complete hypocrite?

The US was created and formed on the only successful version of Lebensraum in history


So how can Jewish settlers be an obstacle to peace?
Are you again backing the former Jordanian policy of the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the West Bank and Jerusalem and making them Judenrein..?

That a future Palestinian state, cannot have a minority Jewish population?

Just as Israel has a minority Arab population?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:31 am

Thorin wrote:Again Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens within the West Bank, because they are under Palestinian authority control...Some Palestinians can and have under Israel control in East Jerusalem become Israeli citizens.


How many French became German citizens when their country was occupied? Had Germany occupied the UK, how many British would have become Germans just to vote?

Whatever else that reasoning means, didge, it says that this is a permanent Land Grab, that Israel is basing their defense on a need to become an Israeli citizen. Looks like Israel hopes to hang on to that land for a long time.

Nuff said...

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:42 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:Again Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens within the West Bank, because they are under Palestinian authority control...Some Palestinians can and have under Israel control in East Jerusalem become Israeli citizens.


How many French became German citizens when their country was occupied?  Had Germany occupied the UK, how many British would have become Germans just to vote?

Whatever else that reasoning means, didge, it says that this is a permanent Land Grab, that Israel is basing their defense on a need to become an Israeli citizen.  Looks like Israel hopes to hang on to that land for a long time.

Nuff said...


How absurd again, when Germany allowed the Vichy Government did they not?

The Germans then occupied all France, with no hope of a nation.

There has always been many times a chance for a Palestinian nation and each time its the Palestinians that have refused, because they refuse to except the existence of Israel.

The world is no longer buying the Palestinian victim-hood.

Also, how is it occupation, when there is a Palestinian authority in power in both Gaza and the West Bank

And again we see you avoid ever point and make up more bull, to cover for the lies you constantly made

So answer the questions or jog on you antisemite

Again Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens within the West Bank, because they are under Palestinian authority control. The Israeli settlers are under Israeli control. Some Palestinians can and have under Israel control in East Jerusalem become Israeli citizens. Some do not, as they hope that East Jerusalem, becomes part of the future Palestinian state. 

So you are backing the view, that Israel should allow voting to non-citizens. That do not want Israeli citizenship. Which would actually then mean for this to happen. That Israel annex all the land in the West Bank, ending any hope of a Palestinian state. As you believe non-citizens should have the vote in Israel. By becoming Israeli citizens.
So you want Israel to annex the West Bank

There was me thinking, you were for a two state solution and yet you want Israel to annex all the West Bank.

You mean the law that will be rightly taken down by Israeli's top court?
How even coalition Governments in Israel are not above the law?

Or did you not look past how this law will never stand and you being an expert on law apparently?

http://www.timesofisrael.com/groups-petition-high-court-to-strike-down-outpost-law/

Or that illegal settlements are demolished still?

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-settlers-evicted-20170228-story.html

So there is no Israeli Lebensraum, unless you are advocating the original Jordanian ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem of Jews, making them Judenrein..

It always makes me laugh, how a Californian has the audacity to charge Israel with Lebensraum, when California was annexed by the US.

Does that not make you the descendants of settlers, who did actually ethnically cleanse the indigenous and annex the lands of California? A complete hypocrite?

The US was created and formed on the only successful version of Lebensraum in history


So how can Jewish settlers be an obstacle to peace?
Are you again backing the former Jordanian policy of the ethnic cleansing of Jews in the West Bank and Jerusalem and making them Judenrein..?

That a future Palestinian state, cannot have a minority Jewish population?

Just as Israel has a minority Arab population?


Last edited by Thorin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:45 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:43 am

The Israeli Government just needs to get out of the West Bank really - that would solve a lot. I don't see why the Palestinians can't have their own nation - after all, the Jews got their own - and more.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:48 am

Raggamuffin wrote:The Israeli Government just needs to get out of the West Bank really - that would solve a lot. I don't see why the Palestinians can't have their own nation - after all, the Jews got their own - and more.

The Israeli Government only controls area C, the areas B and A are under Palestinian control


They got out of Gaza in 2005, and then received unprecedented suicide bombings and countless conflicts started by Hamas. Because they refused to except the existence of Israel and believe all of Israel is occupied.

Ask yourself why the Palestinians authorities have refused to have a nation when they could have done 4 times?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:52 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:The Israeli Government just needs to get out of the West Bank really - that would solve a lot. I don't see why the Palestinians can't have their own nation - after all, the Jews got their own - and more.

The Israeli Government only controls area C, the areas B and A are under Palestinian control


They got out of Gaza in 2005, and then received unprecedented suicide bombings and countless conflicts started by Hamas. Because they refused to except the existence of Israel and believe all of Israel is occupied.

Ask yourself why the Palestinians authorities have refused to have a nation when they could have done 4 times?

Explain please.

They shouldn't be controlling any of it. They call it "disputed" land. Why is it disputed?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:57 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

The Israeli Government only controls area C, the areas B and A are under Palestinian control


They got out of Gaza in 2005, and then received unprecedented suicide bombings and countless conflicts started by Hamas. Because they refused to except the existence of Israel and believe all of Israel is occupied.

Ask yourself why the Palestinians authorities have refused to have a nation when they could have done 4 times?

Explain please.

They shouldn't be controlling any of it. They call it "disputed" land. Why is it disputed?


Okay 1937 Peel Commision.
1947 UN Partition Plan
Oslo accords 1993
2008 peace offer from Olmert.

Well, why was not the West Bank and Gaza not disputed under Jordanian and Egyptian control, when occupied from 1948-1967? 

They should be controlling the areas, to maintain peace, until such a time the Palestinians want peace, instead of constantly attacking Israel

So why are you making poor excuses for the Palestinians and why should the land be theirs, when they received 77% of the British Mandate already?

Do you back greed?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:03 am

How about people lay blame, where it should be.
With the Palestinian authorities


Palestinians Rejected Statehood Three Times, Claim Frustration -- with Israel

Palestinian spokesmen from PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on down have expressed their frustration with the Oslo peace process, charging that it failed and is dead, thanks to alleged Israeli intransigence, and that therefore they have no choice but to go to the United Nations to seek full membership and therefore statehood.
 
It should be noted at the outset that for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood, or even to take the issue to the United Nations, would be a grave violation of the PLO's signed agreements with Israel, which explicitly barred such unilateral actions and appeals to outside parties. All of these agreements were also witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU, etc. If any of these countries now go along with material violations of agreements that they witnessed, that would raise serious questions about the worth of such agreements and the worth of such witnessing.
 
As for Palestinian frustration, they may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders? For the fact is, just as the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.
 
Why do the Palestinians refuse a negotiated peace? Because a negotiated peace means the end of the conflict, or at least promising to end the conflict and accept Israel. But the Palestinian leadership wants a state so that they can continue the conflict from a stronger position. In particular, they want a state and they want to keep pressing in every way for the "right of return" to Israel.
 
Israel would not agree to that in negotiations, which is why Palestinians want a state without negotiations, and without having to make any compromises.
In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details:
1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem.
Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return."
Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper:
From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.
On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years...
And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]
He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)
And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down:
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009)
Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:
 
2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive.
Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada).
Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:
... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)
According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:
Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat:
3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.
The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.
The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.
Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.
Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.
 
While the Palestinian people have much to be frustrated about, the object of their frustration should be not Israel, but their own leaders, who have thrown away opportunity after opportunity to establish the Palestinian state they claim to desire above all else

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:05 am

This is how much land the Palestinians turned down with the Peel Commision.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:17 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Explain please.

They shouldn't be controlling any of it. They call it "disputed" land. Why is it disputed?


Okay 1937 Peel Commision.
1947 UN Partition Plan
Oslo accords 1993
2008 peace offer from Olmert.

Well, why was not the West Bank and Gaza not disputed under Jordanian and Egyptian control, when occupied from 1948-1967? 

They should be controlling the areas, to maintain peace, until such a time the Palestinians want peace, instead of constantly attacking Israel

So why are you making poor excuses for the Palestinians and why should the land be theirs, when they received 77% of the British Mandate already?

Do you back greed?

You're back to the British Mandate. Of course those who are Pro-Israel include the area of Jordan when they talk about Palestine - they have a motive for doing so. The area east of the Jordan was called Trans-Jordan. In the 1947 partition plan, the area of the West Bank was clearly not supposed to be for the Jews. In Palestine (the area west of the Jordan), the proposal was that Jews would get 56% of the land - why is that?

You are the one making poor excuses for the Israelis controlling land which was never supposed to be their land. Why did they build settlements in the West Bank if they merely want to stop Palestinians attacking Israel?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:21 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:


Okay 1937 Peel Commision.
1947 UN Partition Plan
Oslo accords 1993
2008 peace offer from Olmert.

Well, why was not the West Bank and Gaza not disputed under Jordanian and Egyptian control, when occupied from 1948-1967? 

They should be controlling the areas, to maintain peace, until such a time the Palestinians want peace, instead of constantly attacking Israel

So why are you making poor excuses for the Palestinians and why should the land be theirs, when they received 77% of the British Mandate already?

Do you back greed?

You're back to the British Mandate. Of course those who are Pro-Israel include the area of Jordan when they talk about Palestine - they have a motive for doing so. The  area east of the Jordan was called Trans-Jordan. In the 1947 partition plan, the area of the West Bank was clearly not supposed to be for the Jews. In Palestine (the area west of the Jordan), the proposal was that Jews would get 56% of the land - why is that?

You are the one making poor excuses for the Israelis controlling land which was never supposed to be their land. Why did they build settlements in the West Bank if they merely want to stop Palestinians attacking Israel?


I have shown even without Jordan, they have refused 4 times for a statehood and peace.

Read about the Partition plan, which was based on demographics, where Jews were a majority in one part and the Arabs were a majority in another part.
The Jewish got most of the desert.
How do you class desert as more land?

You think Israel should forgo security of its people, from a people that wishes to eradicate them
Its you making excuses

Again you avoided and if you avoid again, then you are not participating in the debate are you?

You offer no reason why they should not have a nation and state, which means you are against the existence of israel, as the Palestinians see all of Israel occupied.

Thanks for clarifying, you are against Israel existing and based no reason.

Jews have always lived in the historical land of Judea and Israel.

It would be like you claiming, the native American Indians have no rights to land in the US

The following and offered no reasons why the Palestinians keep refusing a statehood.

Okay 1937 Peel Commision.
1947 UN Partition Plan
Oslo accords 1993
2008 peace offer from Olmert.


This is how much land the Palestinians turned down with the Peel Commision.




Palestinians Rejected Statehood Three Times, Claim Frustration -- with Israel

Palestinian spokesmen from PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on down have expressed their frustration with the Oslo peace process, charging that it failed and is dead, thanks to alleged Israeli intransigence, and that therefore they have no choice but to go to the United Nations to seek full membership and therefore statehood.
 
It should be noted at the outset that for the Palestinians to unilaterally declare statehood, or even to take the issue to the United Nations, would be a grave violation of the PLO's signed agreements with Israel, which explicitly barred such unilateral actions and appeals to outside parties. All of these agreements were also witnessed by outside parties including the United States, Russia, Norway, the EU, etc. If any of these countries now go along with material violations of agreements that they witnessed, that would raise serious questions about the worth of such agreements and the worth of such witnessing.
 
As for Palestinian frustration, they may indeed be frustrated with more than 18 years of on-again, off-again negotiations, but the question is with whom should they be frustrated – Israel, or their own leaders? For the fact is, just as the legendary Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once said about relations between the Arabs and Israel, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," and there have been many statehood opportunities that Palestinian leaders have wilfully missed.
 
Why do the Palestinians refuse a negotiated peace? Because a negotiated peace means the end of the conflict, or at least promising to end the conflict and accept Israel. But the Palestinian leadership wants a state so that they can continue the conflict from a stronger position. In particular, they want a state and they want to keep pressing in every way for the "right of return" to Israel.
 
Israel would not agree to that in negotiations, which is why Palestinians want a state without negotiations, and without having to make any compromises.
In accord with this, at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them, most recently just a few years ago. Here are the details:
1. In 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert's plan would have annexed the major Israeli settlements to Israel and in return given equivalent Israeli territory to the Palestinians, and would have divided Jerusalem.
Numerous settlements including Ofra, Elon Moreh, Beit El and Kiryat Arba would have been evacuated, and Hebron would have been abandoned. Tens of thousands of settlers would have been uprooted. Olmert even says preliminary agreement had been reached with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian claim to a "right of return."
Olmert recounted much of this in an interview with Greg Sheridan in the Australian newspaper:
From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations.
On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years...
And four, there were security issues. [Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.]
He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again. (Nov. 28, 2009)

And this is not just a self-serving claim by Olmert – Abbas, in an interview with Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post, confirmed the outlines of the Olmert offer and that he turned it down:
In our meeting Wednesday, Abbas acknowledged that Olmert had shown him a map proposing a Palestinian state on 97 percent of the West Bank -- though he complained that the Israeli leader refused to give him a copy of the plan. He confirmed that Olmert "accepted the principle" of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees -- something no previous Israeli prime minister had done -- and offered to resettle thousands in Israel. In all, Olmert's peace offer was more generous to the Palestinians than either that of Bush or Bill Clinton; it's almost impossible to imagine Obama, or any Israeli government, going further.
Abbas turned it down. "The gaps were wide," he said. (May 29, 2009)

Ha'aretz published Olmert's map, showing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza with a free passage route to connect them. The map, which also showed the Israeli territory that would have been swapped with the Palestinians in return for annexing some Israeli settlements to Israel, is reproduced below:
 
2. In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters, which was similar to the later Olmert Plan, though not quite as extensive.
Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada).
Despite the violence, Prime Minister Barak continued to negotiate to the end of his term, culminating in an Israeli proposal at Taba which extended the Clinton proposal. Barak offered the Palestinians all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, no Israeli control over the border with Jordan or the adjacent Jordan Valley, a small Israeli annexation around three settlement blocs balanced by an equivalent area of Israeli territory that would have been ceded to the Palestinians. As chief US negotiator Ambassador Dennis Ross put it in a FoxNews interview:
... the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous... And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage. (Fox News, April 21, 2002)

According to Ambassador Ross, Palestinian negotiators working for Arafat wanted him to accept the Clinton Parameters, but he refused. In response to Brit Hume’s question as to why Arafat turned these deals down, Ross said:
Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

Here's the Taba map proposed by Israel, which was once again turned down by Arafat:
3. UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.
The Arabs and the Palestinians were true to their word and did launch a war against the Jews of Palestine, violating both Resolution 181 and the UN Charter. Much to the surprise of the Arab side, the Jews were able to survive the initial onslaughts and eventually win the war.
The fundamental fact remains that had the Arabs and the Palestinians accepted the Partition Resolution and not violated the UN Charter by attacking Israel, there would be a 63-year-old Palestinian state today next to Israel, and there would not have been a single Palestinian refugee.
Just as today, it seems that even in 1948 the Arab side was more concerned with opposing and attacking the Jewish state than with creating a Palestinian state.
Besides the above statehood opportunities, there were other notable opportunities that were missed too, such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, which provided for Palestinian autonomy in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat begged the PLO and Yasir Arafat to accept what he had negotiated with Israel, and to engage in talks with Israel. President Carter also called on moderate Palestinians to come forward and join the Cairo conference. Unfortunately Arafat refused and did everything he could to undermine Sadat and the Camp David Accords, with PLO gunmen even murdering West Bank Palestinians who supported Sadat's approach.
 
While the Palestinian people have much to be frustrated about, the object of their frustration should be not Israel, but their own leaders, who have thrown away opportunity after opportunity to establish the Palestinian state they claim to desire above all else

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:32 am

Giving 56% of the land to a minority group was bound to be rejected by the majority - that seems obvious to me. All those plans were bound to fail somewhere down the line because of the Arab majority.


_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:34 am

I am off to work, I expect to see reasons, why you think Palestinians have a claim to the land over that of Jews.
When I believe both can have nations. They were a majority, not minority in the area given Israel. Most Arabs were in the towns and cities. Your misdirection on 52% not 55% of the 23% left of the Mandate, when they were promised 100% the Jews. 77% was given to the Arabs already, which you also avoid. shows you are ignoring history and failing to answer countless questions again
You need to stop offering excuses as top why the Palestinians authorities keep denying their people a state or peace.
The reason, because they refuse to accept the existence of Israel.

Last chance to answer my points, or you are out of this debate. I am bored of your avoiding points

Laters

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:38 am

In addition to roughly 600,000 Jews, 350,000 Arabs resided in the Jewish state created by partition. Approximately 92,000 Arabs lived in Tiberias, Safed, Haifa and Bet Shean, and another 40,000 were Bedouins, most of whom were living in the desert. The remainder of the Arab population was spread throughout the Jewish state and occupied most of the agricultural land.

According to British statistics in their 1948 Survey of Palestine, 8.6 percent of the land that comprised the Jewish State in 1948 was owned by Jews and 3.3 percent by Israeli Arabs. Another 16.9 percent was abandoned by Arabs who left the country. The rest-more than 70 percent-was in the hands of the Mandatory power, and reverted to Israeli control after the departure of the British.

These figures are misleading, since nearly 80 percent of what was the historic land of Palestine and the Jewish National Home, as defined by the League of Nations, was severed by the British in 1922 and allocated to what became Transjordan. Jewish settlement there was barred. The UN partitioned the remaining 20 percent of Palestine into two states. With Jordan's annexation of the West Bank in 1950, Arabs controlled approximately 80 percent of the territory of the Mandate, while the Palestinian Jewish State held a bare 17.5 percent (Gaza, occupied by Egypt, was the remainder).
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-u-n-partition-plan

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:41 am

Thorin wrote:I am off to work, I expect to see reasons, why you think Palestinians have a claim to the land over that of Jews.
When I believe both can have nations. They were a majority, not minority in the area given Israel. Most Arabs were in the towns and cities. Your misdirection on 52% not 55% of the 23% left of the Mandate, when they were promised 100% the Jews. 77% was given to the Arabs already, which you also avoid. shows you are ignoring history and failing to answer countless questions again
You need to stop offering excuses as top why the Palestinians authorities keep denying their people a state or peace.
The reason, because they refuse to accept the existence of Israel.

Last chance to answer my points, or you are out of this debate. I am bored of your avoiding points

Laters

You're always talking about "self determination" but that doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians. You excuse the occupation of the West Bank all the time.

77% of Palestine was not giving to the Arabs - you keep including Trans-Jordan/Jordan, and I've already told you why you do that. This is about the area to the west of the Jordan - you don't seem to be able to grasp that.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:49 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38888649

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/24/israel-announces-2500-more-west-bank-settlement-homes

All this building of settlements is just baiting the Palestinians isn't it? They should be able to refuse permission for any of them IMO. In the event of any future deal, it will be a mess because Israel will want to keep that land.

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Raggamuffin on Thu Mar 30, 2017 8:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
Thorin wrote:So why are Christians, Druze, Muslims etc are allowed to vote?

In local and municipal elections only.  Palestinians who are merely residents cannot vote in the bigger, more significant elections, such as the Israeli Lebensraum law, mentioned above.

This distinction is most relevant to people living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, since it is their land being taken.

Do you consider that the Israelis are practising lebensraum Quill?

_________________

"It ain't over 'til it's over"
avatar
Raggamuffin

Posts : 31244
Join date : 2014-02-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Original Quill on Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:19 pm

I believe that Israel is pursuing the territory of the Palestinians for what it believes is needed for its natural development.  

Israel began as a refuge from discrimination in Europe.  Now it has developed into a modern nation, with aspirations for growth, resources and self-sufficiency.  It has transitioned from an attitude of self-protection to one of self-expansion.

Lebensraum means acquiring territory for natural development.  Throughout the age of colonialism we saw this sort of expansionism, however in much less constrained circumstances.  Spain and Portugal in South and Central America, the UK and France in the Americas and Africa, and so forth.  The idea was overlain with racist notions of who it was acceptable to wrest land from...hence it's association with ethnocentric and racist ideals, as didge has pointed out.

Germany came into the game of colonization late.  The New World was all used up.  There were no more discoveries about in the world.  If Germany was to take it's "place in the sun" it would have to do it against other European-like peoples.,,,Poland and Russia.  Germany called this Lebensraum, in a futile attempt to historically justify itself, but it moved against people with recognized status and rights.  It was a theme whose time had come and gone.  All the gloss had eroded away and what was left was the racism/nationalism.

Ironically, Israel comes even later into the game, with identical needs.  Israel returns to the old style of colonialism, by moving against third-world, non-European peoples.  Under the guise of self-defense it initiated a series of wars from which it acquired the following territories.  From 1947 to 1967 events opened up territories in the West Bank, and Gaza Strip:

1967–1994: During the Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights, together with the Sinai Peninsula (later traded for peace after the Yom Kippur War). In 1980–81 Israel annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Neither Israel's annexation nor Palestine's claim over East Jerusalem has been internationally recognized.

Because Israel has always held out the promise that it would return these lands, it has assuaged much of the criticism leveled against Germany for its Lebensraum.  But now, with settlers moving in and establishing permanent settlements there, the lie has been put to the Israeli position.  

Furthermore, Israeli PM Netanyahu has openly stated that he never intended to return the land, so there's not much to distinguish the Israeli present position from the Lebensraum of Germany prior to 1945.  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/world/middleeast/benjamin-netanyahu-campaign-settlement.html

We'll never know how long Germany's Lebensraum would have taken, but Israel has managed the same thing by holding out false hope from 1967 to 2015 that it would return the lands.  When the false promise came to light, there was nothing to distinguish Israel's Lebensraum from Germany's Lebensraum.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25523
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Guest on Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:52 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:I am off to work, I expect to see reasons, why you think Palestinians have a claim to the land over that of Jews.
When I believe both can have nations. They were a majority, not minority in the area given Israel. Most Arabs were in the towns and cities. Your misdirection on 52% not 55% of the 23% left of the Mandate, when they were promised 100% the Jews. 77% was given to the Arabs already, which you also avoid. shows you are ignoring history and failing to answer countless questions again
You need to stop offering excuses as top why the Palestinians authorities keep denying their people a state or peace.
The reason, because they refuse to accept the existence of Israel.

Last chance to answer my points, or you are out of this debate. I am bored of your avoiding points

Laters

You're always talking about "self determination" but that doesn't seem to apply to the Palestinians. You excuse the occupation of the West Bank all the time.

77% of Palestine was not giving to the Arabs - you keep including Trans-Jordan/Jordan, and I've already told you why you do that. This is about the area to the west of the Jordan - you don't seem to be able to grasp that.

It does apply to the Palestinians, what you keep avoiding is that they could have had this for times and its Israel who has first provided the grounds for a semi independent Palestine.
Yes it was given to the Arabs, in the form of Jordan, which is absurd how you continue to deny.
How many Palestinians are in Jordan?
Because Jordan was part of the British Mandate and given to the Arabs.
You tell me why you seem to want to whitewash history and exclude this?

So lets ask the question.

The Scottish people are one tenth the size of the other ethnic groups of the UK.
A future Independent Scotland will gain just under half the land mass of the UK

Any objections here from you?

The you can tell me why you think the Arabs, gained 77% and then more through two offers in 1937 and the 1947, but refusing them and were still unhappy, which would have given them an even higher percentage being that they are descended from colonialists who conquered? The Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, they are to the Arabian Peninsular.

And to easily debunk Quill. why has Israel given up for more land, than it now has?

Then explain to me why Palestinian authority have thwarted for times to have a nation and peace, with instead continued conflict?



Lets then compare Jewish land to Arab land


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: "U.N. needs to know: there's a new sheriff in town" - Nikki Haley

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum