The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Obama - confronting the killing culture in Palestine > Comments

Obama - confronting the killing culture in Palestine : Comments

By David Singer, published 22/3/2011

Abbas’s attempt to justify some kind of moral equivalence between land disputes and the murder of Jewish civilians must be categorically rejected by President Obama.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. All
David,

You must be very proud of yourself for finding this legal loophole (assuming, for lack of legal-training and skills in reading the small-print, that you are correct). According to the Geneva convention, if a kosher/sovereign state takes over areas of another kosher/sovereign state in the course of war, then it is illegal to settle its citizens there. However, you managed to demonstrate that in 1967 the West-Bank did not belong to a kosher state (perhaps some official stamp was missing or had the wrong colour of ink) and therefore the Geneva convention does not hold and the occupier can do there whatever they like. Congratulations!

I stated that the UN never had an intention to allow the Jews to misbehave. Rather than answering to the point, you wrote about "Arabs" and how bad they are: Totally irrelevant!

I have never mentioned the Roadmap on these pages. What I wrote has nothing to do with it because keeping the occupied-territories and settling there was detrimental to Israel even decades earlier.

So tsunamis are an act of God, but Arabs are not? then who the hell created the Arabs which poor God is powerless to remove?

The Fogel family was murdered because that is part of life in the Middle-East, being surrounded by Arabs/Muslims. This is no different in principle than living in the ring-of-fire and occasionally dying of earthquakes and tsunamis. If you swim in a crocodile-infested lake, don't be surprised if...

You stated that "decision to reduce building activity in the West Bank did not save the Fogel family from being murdered": of course it didn't, that would be as unrealistic as averting tsunamis, hence my example (which you consider stupid). However, it did lots of good in other areas (other than your impossible criteria of "changing the Arabs"), which you wish to ignore. It seems that you like to stick to that impossible criteria because it justifies your desire for Jewish land. You prefer to promote your grand ideas of "Jewish National Home in their biblical and ancestral land" at the expense of ordinary Israeli citizens.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 26 March 2011 9:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#csteele

You state:

"Here is what we got in the last 120 words he used to answer my post;
...pure Jew hatred...Jews living in the West Bank.. Jew hatred... murder of Jews...not one Jew lived in the West Bank...Jew hatred.

Yet surely this is about Israelis and Palestinians, so why the concerted effort to couch the conflict in these emotive terms? "

My answer:

Because the conflict is indeed between Jews and Arabs - not Israelis and Palestinians - and it began in the late 1880's.

Censuses in Palestine during Ottoman and British rule classified the population into three categories labelled "Moslems", "Christians" and "Jews"

The Mandate in 1922 didn't even mention "Arabs" or "Palestinians". It spoke of the "non-Jewish communities" in Palestine.

The 1947 UN Plan only spoke of partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab State - no mention of a Palestinian state.

There were no "Israelis" until Israel became a sovereign state in 1948.

The conflict has always been one of the Arabs refusing to recognize a Jewish National Home in any part of Palestine for the last 130 years.

The PLO Charter (1968) states:

"Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong."

I like to deal with facts - not fiction. You apparently are not.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 27 March 2011 11:35:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#David G

You state

"The Singer is a Jew, one who believes that he is one of the Children of God. As such, he believes he has special rights and that his people have special rights and that God gave them these rights which sets them apart from the rest of us mugs and allows them to do whatever they like which includes stealing land from others, occupying them, humiliating them, killing them, starving them, etc.

My answer:

Jews only claim to be entitled to exercise the legal rights recognized by the League of Nations and the United Nations entitling them to reconstitute their national Home in former Palestine in recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine - rights that have never been recognized by the Arabs

You insist on attacking the messenger and ignoring the above message.

It is a pity that you don't take your own advice and just ignore me.

You would save yourself a lot of hate, vitriol and anguish.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 27 March 2011 11:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
#Yuyutsu

Well we are making some ground.

You acknowledge there may be what you term a "legal loophole" but which I would describe as "the international law relating to Jewish settlement in the West Bank".

You are indeed beginning to understand that the West Bank did not belong to a kosher/sovereign state in 1967. Indeed it still does not belong to any kosher/sovereign state in 2011. It is "no man's land" in which Jews have the right to settle under article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. Jordan withdrew any claims to sovereignty in 1988. A newly created entity in 1993 - the Palestinian Authority - is making a claim - as a result of the Oslo Accords.

Jordan occupied the West Bank between 1948-1967 and its failure to annex the West Bank was not due to the absence of an official stamp or the wrong colour ink as you facetiously suggest - but due to the refusal of any country bar - Great Britain and Pakistan - to recognize such annexation.

I find it hard to believe you are unaware of these facts. Why sprout nonsense that makes you appear totally ignorant?

Equating the murderous actions of Arabs with loss of life caused by a tsunami - as acts of God - is mind blowing and just makes the rest of your post irrelevant and not worthy of further comment.
Posted by david singer, Sunday, 27 March 2011 12:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, folks, if the Singer is right, then we all have the right to trace our ancestry back and lay claim to whatever our long distant relatives owned thousands of years ago!

I might have claim to Buckingham Palace or a castle-type country estate on the Moors. If I have any Roman blood in me as a result of the Roman conquest of Britain, I might be able to claim real estate in Florence or Rome, perhaps the site of the Vatican. If I have Viking blood as well then Sweden and Norway could also be on my list. I could end up owning half of Europe!

Why don't you join me in this quest. I think we should appoint the Singer as our legal representative.

He seems to argue nonsensical notions with great skill!

http://dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Sunday, 27 March 2011 2:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

If you look at Israeli maps between 1949-1967, the area to the east of Israel has just one colour, with just one label across both sides of the Jordan river: "JORDAN". If you'd been in Israel at the time, you could see the road-signs "Halt, border ahead". Perhaps for lack of lawyers, it was very clear and every Israeli child knew: Israel is here, there is the border and there's the Jordanian enemy on the other side, rock solid along with real Jordanian soldiers shooting across from the walls of Jerusalem's old-city. Everyone knew their place: this is ours, that is not - that is Arab.

The Geneva convention did not appear arbitrarily out of thin-air: it reflects the human concern towards people who find themselves on the losing-side of wars, such as POWs and civilians who are afflicted by occupation. Can technical/legal points alleviate their suffering and justify atrocities? Had the outcome of the 1967 been the reverse, would you still hold that the Geneva convention does not hold due to technical excuses?

I knew that lawyers live in a world of their own, that legalities and common-sense do not go hand-in-hand, but was not previously aware to what extent until I read your reply to Csteele, according to which you still categorize people according to archaic terms from the late 19th century to the early 20th at the most, such as "Jews" and "non-Jews" and consider that practice valid simply because it fitted the Ottoman regime.

(yes, I know that Ben-Gurion also mentioned "Jews" and "Jewish-state", and even raised a bible as "proof", but that was completely cynical on his behalf for tactical purposes, he never meant a word of what he said, whereas you seem to mean it)

You still talk about the supposed rights of those "Jews" while disregarding the actual contemporary citizens of the state of Israel, mentioning them with reluctance as if they either do not exist or as if their whole existence is only for the purpose of serving your Jewish real-estate aspirations, in other words, as being "Messiah's donkey" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Messiah%27s_Donkey).

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 27 March 2011 7:35:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. 17
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy