SUBSIM Radio Room Forums
Page 8 of 9 « First 4567 8 9
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Gaza militants fire rockets at Beersheba, Israel (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=180632)

redsocialist 02-25-11 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MH (Post 1606127)
We are all calm.
You just seem to be the buger on the loose.
:shucks:

Sailor Steve 02-25-11 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1605890)
So back to Steve with my "No it wasn't", it was occupied territory which Jordan held, it wasn't owned by Jordan.
So who was it owned by? The "Palestinians"? Were there any "Palestinians" prior to the PLO?

Jimbuna 02-25-11 04:29 PM
Where's Chris and his Tater Tots? :hmmm:

Tribesman 02-25-11 05:47 PM
@MH
Quote:
I dont lie - dont need to.
Unfortunately you have on several occasions, normally before you rant about assumptions you are making about sources and concerning events which don't look good from your position.

Quote:
You cant start just with the basic.
Unless you get the basics right in the first place everything else is a waste of time as it will fall apart.

Quote:
OK it did not work....
Indeed, the same old stumbling points for both sides, thats basics isn't it.

Quote:
Settlers if it was THE ISSUE would be just great.
What electoral force settlers have ?
Plenty, after all nationally where would the current government be without the settler parties?
On a local level just look at your own location, they carry power way beyond their number.

Quote:
They feel abandoned.
Don't they appreciate permanantly sucking off welfare?
Don't they appreciate the government telling your biggest ally to F.Off on their behalf?

@Steve

Quote:
So who was it owned by?
Certainly not Israel or Jordan(or for the southern front Egypt).
Quote:
The "Palestinians"?
It would have to be wouldn't it. ownership would be set aside for the proposed Palestinian State.
Quote:
Were there any "Palestinians" prior to the PLO?
You can do better than that.
How prior do you want to go?

Sailor Steve 02-25-11 09:08 PM
I already posted the link that goes all the way back to the beginning. And no, the current "Palestinians" didn't exist as a separate nation, and land wasn't set aside for them. They were indeed a part of Jordan.

And you're still not linking the person who posted, so we know who you're talking to. Maybe I'll start answering five posts down with no quotes at all.

Tribesman 02-26-11 04:57 AM
@Steve
Quote:
I already posted the link that goes all the way back to the beginning.
Sorry, I thought you posted that Horowitz rubbish as a joke.
Do you really want that article to be taken seriously?

Quote:
And no, the current "Palestinians" didn't exist as a separate nation, and land wasn't set aside for them.
The Irish didn't exist, Pakistanis didn't exist Americans didn't exist.
Palestinians as a legal entity rather than a historical one came in with the citizenship rules set out after WW1
The provisions for land set aside came into being with the development of the mandate also in particular with the allocation of former Ottoman govt. holdings held in trust for the population by the mandatory power

Quote:
They were indeed a part of Jordan.
Not in the slightest, its in black and white in the mandate and in the partition plan.
Plus of course Jordan only occupied those lands after a date when the law says they cannot take land.
So no way can there possibly be any Jordanian claim whatsoever in the slightest for ownsership any more than there can be any Israeli claim.
Sorry Steve, it really is that simple, the "Jordanian ownership" claim you made falls at every fence, in truth it really gets disqualified long before the race starts

MH 02-26-11 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)
@MH

Unfortunately you have on several occasions, normally before you rant about assumptions you are making about sources and concerning events which don't look good from your position.
Just your assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)
Unless you get the basics right in the first place everything else is a waste of time as it will fall apart.
They have their basic rights and more.
For many the rights are up to PA.
Israeli Palestinians have full rights and they don't complain about apartheid state as some left activist in England or elsewhere.
Actually as i tried to explain to you they don't want to be part of Palestinian state.
Ask Arabs in eastern Jerusalem where they would prefer to live.
Israel or Palestine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)
Indeed, the same old stumbling points for both sides, thats basics isn't it.
Stop running in circles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)
Plenty, after all nationally where would the current government be without the settler parties?
There is one pary with 3 seats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)
On a local level just look at your own location, they carry power way beyond their number.
My own location....you have no idea.
What do you understand that its not about settling west bank anymore.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606483)

Don't they appreciate permanantly sucking off welfare?
Don't they appreciate the government telling your biggest ally to F.Off on their behalf?
?
Again shooting in the dark?
You talking about orthodox or settlers?
I actually work with a few.
Orthodox and Palestinians are the biggest welfare suckers.

Tribesman 02-26-11 07:43 AM
@MH
Quote:
Just your assumption.
easily demonstrated as true:up:

Quote:
They have their basic rights and more........
What on earth are you on about?

Quote:
Stop running in circles.
It is going in circles and will forever go in circles until the basics are sorted.

Quote:
There is one pary with 3 seats.
:har::har::har::har::har:
Only if you redifine settler parties as only one particular offshoot of ever splitting parties and groupings.

Quote:
My own location....you have no idea.
You have said you live in Jerusalem, was that another example of you making things up?

Quote:
What do you understand that its not about settling west bank anymore.
Yes settling occupied territory isn't an issue and some famous politician didn't just yesterday complain to your great leader about the continuing building of settlements and deliberate blocking of any moves towards peace.


Quote:
Again shooting in the dark?
You talking about orthodox or settlers?
Settlers as that is the scope of the discussion, which of course includes those ultras who are settlers.
What the ultra othodox do in Isreali land and their over reliance on welfare is outside the issue.

MH 02-26-11 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
@MH

easily demonstrated as true:up:

.
You never demonstrated anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)

What on earth are you on about?
.
What you talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
@
It is going in circles and will forever go in circles until the basics are sorted.

.
Good luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
@
:har::har::har::har::har:
Only if you redifine settler parties as only one particular offshoot of ever splitting parties and groupings.
.
:damn::damn::damn::damn:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
@
You have said you live in Jerusalem, was that another example of you making things up?
No i never make things up you just like to claim this way when something doesn't meet your view.
You actually never succeeded in really contradict my "lies".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
Yes settling occupied territory isn't an issue and some famous politician didn't just yesterday complain to your great leader about the continuing building of settlements and deliberate blocking of any moves towards peace.
Great Leader?
If you view current PM as great leader we have really nothing to talk about.
I say it even tho i did not vote for his party.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606858)
Settlers as that is the scope of the discussion, which of course includes those ultras who are settlers.
What the ultra othodox do in Isreali land and their over reliance on welfare is outside the issue.
That great statement-i think i need a lawyer.
You have no clue what you talking about.
Keep goggling.

Tribesman 02-26-11 09:03 AM
Quote:
You actually never succeeded in really contradict my "lies".
Oh dear.
So then when you insist something isn't true and doesn't happen and continue again and again to make that claim it does well establish your position.
When you then eventually concede that maybe it is true but only a little bit and it doesn't happen that much so it isn't really that true its taking a small step away from your established position.
When you then go on after further prodding to concede that it does happen and is more than just a little and is true you have completely contradicted your repeated claims which means those claims you made were untrue.
That means they were lies, it may however be purt down to just a mistake and perhaps just mis-speaking....until you insist again that what you write is true which makes it a deliberate lie.
Unless of course you simply cannot remember claims you have made which makes it an ignorant lie instead of a deliberate lie.

Quote:
What you talking about?
Basics.

Quote:
Good luck.
Its you that needs the luck, after all its you thats paying.

Quote:
:damn::damn::damn::damn:
Would you like to run through the relevant positions on that policy from all the multitude of parties and the links between the parties?:rotfl2:

Quote:
Great Leader?
Indeed
Welcome to sarcasm.

Quote:
You have no clue what you talking about.
Keep goggling.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.
Its sad really as you must have a bad memory since each time you have made similar comments it blows up in your face and demonstrates that it is you who has very little idea what they are talking about.

Sailor Steve 02-26-11 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606794)
Sorry, I thought you posted that Horowitz rubbish as a joke.
Do you really want that article to be taken seriously?
Why not? Can you go through it and show where it's wrong?

Simple insults aren't proof.

Quote:
The Irish didn't exist, Pakistanis didn't exist Americans didn't exist.
Palestinians as a legal entity rather than a historical one came in with the citizenship rules set out after WW1
The Irish have existed on their separate island since forever. As for the Americans, nobody has said that we have any right to the land at all. We stole if fair and square.

Quote:
The provisions for land set aside came into being with the development of the mandate also in particular with the allocation of former Ottoman govt. holdings held in trust for the population by the mandatory power.
Point taken, but while the Jews accepted the plan the Arabs rejected it. After the Bloody civil war Jordan took possession of the West Bank. The point still stands that no one complained about "Palestinian autonomy" under Jordanian rule.

MH 02-26-11 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606913)
Oh dear.
So then when you insist something isn't true and doesn't happen and continue again and again to make that claim it does well establish your position.
When you then eventually concede that maybe it is true but only a little bit and it doesn't happen that much so it isn't really that true its taking a small step away from your established position.
When you then go on after further prodding to concede that it does happen and is more than just a little and is true you have completely contradicted your repeated claims which means those claims you made were untrue.
That means they were lies, it may however be purt down to just a mistake and perhaps just mis-speaking....until you insist again that what you write is true which makes it a deliberate lie.
Unless of course you simply cannot remember claims you have made which makes it an ignorant lie instead of a deliberate lie.
.
:haha: you are stubborn....




Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606913)
Its you that needs the luck, after all its you thats paying.
.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606913)
Would you like to run through the relevant positions on that policy from all the multitude of parties and the links between the parties?:rotfl2:
I'm too lazy for that.
Generally speaking 90% patties in Knesset share on view that Israel will withdraw from West Bank.
Question is on under what condition and nature of PA government ,security,border,territory exchange the last and the best refugee return etc.
Remember that there is an Palestinian Authority as well in the equation that has to agree or not on certain issues.
From my point of view if they want refugees to return to Israel we can keep on building in west bank.
Its two states for two peoples not two states for Palestinians.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1606913)
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.
Its sad really as you must have a bad memory since each time you have made similar comments it blows up in your face and demonstrates that it is you who has very little idea what they are talking about.
:har::har::har::har::har:

Tribesman 02-26-11 11:54 AM
@Steve
Quote:
Simple insults aren't proof.
What insults?
You wrote...
Quote:
Now it's my turn for a fun link:
That suggests you knew it was as much biased crap as the link redsocialist provided.

Quote:
Can you go through it and show where it's wrong?
Can you spot how many items of nonsense are in the first paragraph alone?
Would you like to me to go through the whole pile of crap and point each one out?

Quote:
The Irish have existed on their separate island since forever.
Have they?
the Sinners might have the ourselvers alone line, but it has never really been the case.

Quote:
Point taken, but while the Jews accepted the plan the Arabs rejected it.
Actually they didn't accept the plan.

Quote:
The point still stands that no one complained about "Palestinian autonomy" under Jordanian rule.
Lots of people complained, especially the other arab countries involved

MH 02-26-11 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1607029)

Actually they didn't accept the plan.
Ill help you with that


Quote:
Jewish reaction
The Jewish Agency criticized the UNSCOP majority proposal concerning Jerusalem, saying that the Jewish section of modern Jerusalem (outside the Walled City) should be included in the Jewish State.[73] During his testimony Ben Gurion indicated that he accepted the principle of partition, but stipulated: "To partition," according to the Oxford dictionary, means to divide a thing into two parts. Palestine is divided into three parts, and only in a small part are the Jews allowed to live. We are against that."[74]
The majority of the Jewish groups, and the Jewish Agency subsequently announced their acceptance of the proposed Jewish State, and by implication the proposed international zone, and Arab State. However, it had been stipulated that the implementation of the plan did not make the establishment of one state or territory dependent on the establishment of the others.[75]
A minority of extreme nationalist Jewish groups like Menachem Begin's Irgun Tsvai Leumi and the Lehi (known as the Stern Gang), which had been fighting the British, rejected the plan. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future".[76]
Numerous records indicate the joy of Palestine's Jewish inhabitants as they attended to the U.N. session voting for the division proposal. Up to this day, Israeli history books mention November 29 (the date of this session) as the most important date in Israel's acquisition of independence, and many Israeli cities commemorate the date in their streets' names. However, Jews did criticize the lack of territorial continuity for the Jewish state.
Mehran Kamrava says Israeli sources often cite Jewish acceptance and Arab rejection of the U.N. partition plan as an example of the Zionists' desire for peaceful diplomacy and the Arabs' determination to wage war on the Jews. But he notes that more recent documentary analysis and interpretation of events leading up to and following the creation of the state of Israel fundamentally challenged many of the "myths" of what had actually happened in 1947 and 1948."[77] Simha Flapan wrote that it was a myth that Zionists accepted the UN partition and planned for peace, and that it was also a myth that Arabs rejected partition and launched a war.[78]
Chaim Weizmann commented on outside Arab interference with earlier partition proposals. He noted that Arab states, like Egypt and Iraq, had no legal standing in Palestinian affairs.[79] During the 1947 General Assembly Special Session on Palestine "The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab population."[80] Avi Plascov says that the Arab countries had no intention of permitting the Palestinians a decisive role in the war or establishing a Palestinian state. He notes that the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) could not carry out its decisions and could not count on local Palestinian support.[81]
Arab reaction

The Arab leadership (in and out of Palestine) opposed the plan. The Arabs argued that it violated the rights of the majority of the people in Palestine, which at the time was 67% non-Jewish (1,237,000) and 33% Jewish (608,000).[83]
Arab leaders threatened the Jewish population of Palestine, speaking of "driving the Jews into the sea" and ridding Palestine "of the Zionist Plague".[84] On the eve of the Arab armies invasion, Azzam Pasha, the General Secretary of the Arab League, "describing the fate of the Jews" is said to have declared: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".[85][86][87] However, Joffe and Romirowsky report that this "cannot be confirmed from cited sources".[88] Six days later, Azzam told reporters "We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy."[89]
John Wolffe says that while Zionists tend to attributed Palestinian rejection of the plan to a mere intransigence, Arabs have always reiterated that it was rejected because it was unfair: it gave the majority of the land (56 percent) to the Jews, who at that stage legally owned only 7 percent of it,[90] and remained a minority of the population.[91] Mehran Kamrava also notes the disproportionate allocation under the plan, and adds that the area under Jewish control contained 45 percent of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45 percent of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. Jaffa, though geographically separated, was to be part of the Arab state.[91] Eugene Bovis says that the Jewish leadership had rejected an earlier partition proposal because they felt it didn't allocate enough territory to the proposed Jewish state.[92]
Ian Bickerton says that few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. Bickerton says for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state.[93] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.[94] Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha as the Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Arab League. He was a former Prime Minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as proposed by the Peel Commission and the United Nations. Fakhri Nashashibi and Ragheb Bey Nashashibi were leaders of the movement that opposed the Mufti during the mandate period. Both men accepted partition. Bey was the mayor of Jerusalem. He resigned from the Arab Higher Committee because he accepted the United Nations partition proposal. Fu’ad Nasar, the Secretary of Arab Workers Congress, also accepted partition. The United States declined to recognize the All-Palestine government in Gaza by explaining that it had accepted the UN Mediator's proposal. The Mediator had recommended that Palestine, as defined in the original Mandate including Transjordan, might form a union.Bernadotte's diary said the Mufti had lost credibility on account of his unrealistic predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte noted "It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan."
British reaction

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to implement the plan by force, arguing it was not acceptable to both sides[c In September 1947, the British government announced that the Mandate for Palestine would end on May 14, 1948 Britain refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period or to assist in smoothly handing over territory or authority to any successor.

Gerald 02-26-11 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MH (Post 1607059)
Ill help you with that
Good explanation for the above, :up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.
Page 8 of 9 « First 4567 8 9
Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.