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 > Abdullah abdicates rationality on West Bank nationality > Comments

Abdullah abdicates rationality on West Bank nationality : Comments

By David Singer, published 24/2/2010

Historical facts become important when looking for solutions to sovereignty in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Using singers logic I think all of the middle east should be be returned to the ottomans. It was a great and glorious empire for hundreds of years till they picked the wrong side in WWI.

Singer you mentioned that in 1948 17% of Palestine became Israel. Is it still 17%? I think we have your slippery borders right there. Did the "armistice line" in 1948 cover 17% of Palestine? If it did then you have just shot your own argument in the foot. Your own words state Israel is 17% of historic Palestine. So where exactly does the border go mr singer. 17% that is all you can "LEGALLY" justify. If you want to keep the rest (settlements etc) then it is a one state solution for you and all that goes with it. Democracy, equality and secularism not apartheid, segregation and theocracy. Let alone Jordan taking responsibilities for the palestinians.

You say "Palestine was wiped off the map" in 1946. OK but Israel was wiped off the map in 63 BC wasnt it. Even if palestine was 'wiped off the map" the Palestinians werent were they? They still exist the same as the jews still existed after the romans. Your argument is so full of fail it is embarrassing for you mr singer.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 25 February 2010 11:40:24 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
Mr singer
Article 80 where? Talk about cherry picking! League of Nations it doesn't exist!
In essence you are using the security argument of Security Council Resolution 242 which is tendentious at best as is your interpretation there of. Legal? last time I looked The Palestinians (Palestine aren't members of the UN or are they signatories there of)

The document doesn't give license to appropriate territory for settlers either! Which clearly bring the threat closer and consequently by your unique reasoning justifies more territory appropriation, the wall is point in fact. It's all part of the same issue. Your "reduction to the ridiculous" is a manipulative technique to control the topic for your ends i.e. propaganda

I also note you ignored the fact that YOUR piece is predicated on misinformation and unsupportable claims and assumptions but that doesn't count does it? You have your God and the US on your side.

I have no problem with discussion but your piece, is clearly selling Israel's self made problems here....No thanks, no sale.
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 25 February 2010 1:32:31 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
# Mikk

You ask:

"Singer you mentioned that in 1948 17% of Palestine became Israel. Is it still 17%? ... Did the "armistice line" in 1948 cover 17% of Palestine? "

Answer: Yes and Yes

You further ask:

"So where exactly does the border go mr singer. 17% that is all you can "LEGALLY" justify."

Answer: Not correct. Israel can legally justify claiming sovereignty in any part of the West Bank and Gaza pursuant to the Mandate and article 80. Israel does not want to keep it all and offered more than 90% to the Palestinian Authority in 2000/2001 and 2008 - which has been rejected.

Your last question asks:

"You say "Palestine was wiped off the map" in 1946. OK but Israel was wiped off the map in 63 BC wasnt it."

Answer: Correct. "Eretz Yisroel" was renamed "Palestina" by the Romans after their conquest and occupation. The PLO and Hamas now wish to obliterate the Jewish presence and change the name of "Israel" to "Palestine". My point was that there is no place called "Palestine" that can be found in any atlas today.

#examinator

You can find Article 80 in the United Nations Charter - as I clearly pointed out in my earlier reply.

The League of Nations does not exist. That is why article 80 was inserted in the UN Charter.

Security Council Resolution 242 is binding in international law. It recognizes that Israel will not be required to return to the 1967 armistice lines but only to "secure and recognized boundaries". That is why the Palestinian Authority's insistence on Israel withdrawing to the 1967 armistice lines has resulted in negotiations for the last 16 years leading nowhere. Israel is not going to do it - nor is it required to do it.

You state:

"I also note you ignored the fact that YOUR piece is predicated on misinformation and unsupportable claims and assumptions but that doesn't count does it?"

Isn't it a little unfair to make such a sweeping generalization without pointing out the actual facts in my article that brought you to this conclusion?
Posted by david singer, Thursday, 25 February 2010 9:07:11 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
You really are a vile piece of work singer. You know damn well that the mandate for PALESTINE and UN article 80 etc are all designed and supported so as to give the Arab and Jewish populations of what used to be called Palestine a share of the land equal to their numbers. Palestine had been recognized as a dependent state with its own nationality under the terms of the mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter. I cant see anything in article 80 nor the mandate that says Israel can take whatever it wants.

What about the parts that say Jerusalem will be an international city. Ignored that havent we Israel. What about the fact that the mandate continually talks about "both states" rights and responsibilitys. Does this not indicate a definite 2 State solution was in the minds of the framers of these agreements? What about the obligation of the UN to step in if there is any attempt to use force to alter the proposed agreements?

You cant twist and turn , use all the weasel words under the sun, distort and disemble , lie and defame all you like but the facts remain that Israel stole land that did not belong to it, and continues to do so today. Your ONLY justification is that "god said we can" and that for me is total garbage and indicative of why religion is evil and dangerous.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 26 February 2010 12:10:51 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
Mikk,

I do not claim that "every muslim is a rabid jew hater" any more than I would claim that every German was a rabid Jew hater in 1939. But the Ummah constitutes a Jew hating group in the same sense, perhaps even more so, than Nazi Germany constituted a Jew-hating state. Saying this is no more "racist" than saying Germany was a Jew-hating state in 1939. It is a simple statement of fact supported by a mass of EVIDENCE.

See for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Lethal-Obsession-Anti-Semitism-Antiquity-Global/dp/1400060974/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267132483&sr=8-1


Mikk, Examinator

Let's cut to the chase. do either of you believe there is anything Israel could do that would lead to the Muslim world acceding to the existence of a Jewish-controlled enclave in Dar-ul-Islam?

I am not talking about what you believe Israel "ought" to do. I am NOT talking about what you believe are the rights and wrongs of the situation. I am not asking what the pair of you think Israel could have done differently in the past. I am asking whether either of you TRULY believe there is ANYTHING Israel can do NOW that will result in the Ummah acce;pting its existence.

Frankly if your answer is "yes" then the only difference between the pair of you and Singer is that you occupy different fantasy words; but they are nonetheless fantasy worlds.

The bottom line, and I see no way out of this, is that the destruction of Israel has become as much part of the ideology of the Ummah as the killing of Jews was part of the Nazi ideology. The available evidence says to me that that there is NOTHING Israel can do.

Singer,

Would I prefer a negotiated settlement?

Your and my "preferences" have nothing to do with it.

The situation is what it is.

No negotiated settlement is possible because the Muslim 23% of humanity will never agree to one while most of the rest of the world either does not care or, like mikk and examinator, more or less agrees with the Muslims.

Usual disclaimer. I am NOT going to debate the rights and wrongs
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 26 February 2010 7:26:47 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
#Mikk

Just a few questions for you to answer following your latest post.

1.You are confusing the 1922 mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter WITH the UN Partition Resolution of 1947 - which was rejected by the Arabs and led to the 1948 War. Do you agree with this?

2.Its a bit late to raise the Partition Resolution chestnut again. The region has moved on since 1948.Do you agree with this?

3.The Mandate however is still alive and kicking in 2010 because of Article 80 in the UN Charter. Do you agree with this?

4.The Mandate was established to enable the reconstitution - in Palestine - of the Jewish National Home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities. Article 80 preserves those rights today.Do you agree with this?

5. The reconstitution of the Jewish National Home was soon restricted to 22% of the Mandate (today called Israel and the West Bank and Gaza.) The other 78% of the Mandate territory (today called Jordan) became an Arabs only - totally Jew free - State in 1946 - and still is. Do you agree with this?

6.The Arabs have never accepted the legality of the Mandate. They have never accepted any subsequent offers to resolve the conflict. They have never accepted the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish State. Do you agree with this?

7.Jews have legal claims in the West Bank and Gaza pursuant to the Mandate and Article 80. Do you agree with this?

8.Jews lived in the West Bank before being driven out by the Arabs in 1948. Do you agree with this?

9. The Arabs could have established a State in the West Bank and Gaza between 1948-1967 but failed to do so preferring to have the West Bank unified with Jordan into one State. Do you agree with this?

A simple "Yes" or "No" to each question will do.

I hope you pass this test with flying colours so we can then continue this discussion in a meaningful and civil manner.
Posted by david singer, Friday, 26 February 2010 10:47:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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