Israel is under attack.

I figured a mod wouldn't say anything about punctuation, ...

..... but it would only confuse you with it in there. Originally Posted by LexusLover

youre just about the only one that does


left something out to keep you busy

That is an option. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Israel's loss will be the good ol' US of A's gain!

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

youre just about the only one that does


left something out to keep you busy Originally Posted by CJ7

When I used to post in the P's Pig Pen. LL corrected me once for using your when I should have used you're. Perhaps it was the opposite! From that point on, I purposely mixed up the two. He would correct me at first but he finally gave up and stopped!

He's a predictable Simpleton!

See U.N. Resolution 181 (1947)
Establishing Palenstinian State and Jewish State

"Isreal's legitimacy" was determined by the community of Nations. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How much input did the "community of nations" receive from the Palestinians who would be directly effected? Did the "community of nations" consider that the land had been Palestinian for over 1,000 years?

How much input did the "community of nations" receive from the Palestinians who would be directly effected? Did the "community of nations" consider that the land had been Palestinian for over 1,000 years? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

About the same as the Israelis ..

... now if one wants to retreat back to Biblical times and before ... I suppose that would be academically interesting, but that criterion could create some unintended consequences throughout the world, including, but not limited to, the United States, and clearly parts if not all of Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California ... and then we can address Native-Americans.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181
November 29, 1947

"A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE

"The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

"The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

"Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

"The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.
Full text: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

Then in the Oslow Agreement here are the signatories:

“Agreed in Washington DC, on 13 September 1993.
For the Government of Israel: (Signed) Shimon Peres
For the PLO: (Signed) Mahmud Abbas
Witnessed by: The United States of America, (Signed) Warren Christopher and
The Russian Federation, (Signed) Andrei V Kozyrev."




I believe Abbas just met with Hillary Clinton. It appears that he signed for the PLO.
______________________________ ___________
I personally hope that both sides will come to a lasting agreement and they stop killing each other ... but that state of mine is difficult to establish when one side has openly announced it wants to destroy the other ... both sides need to peacefully live beside each other.

Whether someone lived on this or that piece of land 1,000, 2,000, or 10,000 years ago doesn't really mean a lot in the scheme of things. It's just a "talking point" to justify eradicating Israel. MHO.

When I used to post in the P's Pig Pen. LL corrected me once for using your .... Originally Posted by bigtex

Do you still have a link to that posting? Framed, may be.

You sure you're not a Republican ... elephants remember shit like that! And ex-wives, of course.

How much input did the "community of nations" receive from the Palestinians who would be directly effected? Did the "community of nations" consider that the land had been Palestinian for over 1,000 years? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Palestinians didn't want the land provided for them they wanted the land given to Israel...

The Israelis did not expell any Palestinians. The Grand Mufti of Jordan ordered the Palestinians to leave Israel in 1948.

In the late 40's Jews and Palestinians were living together (amongst one another) in the area ... at that time they were under the Brits' "rule" ... as far as the governing body is concerned ..

... today many, if not most, of the Palestinians want to live peacefully beside Israel without the fighting ... the problem is that there are elements (PLO, HAMAS) who want the Israelis gone. period, and they are being fed and supplied by Iran and other anti-Jewish elements in other countries ... apparently in the U.S. as well.

Palestinians didn't want the land provided for them they wanted the land given to Israel... Originally Posted by ekim008

Indians didn't want the land provided for them they wanted the land taken by U.S.

Indians had no concept of owning land when they bargained it was for usage or travel through.They were fucked.

The Indians not having a concept of ownership is a myth. It was not the same as ours with paperwork and legalities involved but they understood "ours". They did not understand how something,, like a land treaty, could outlive the individual.

They had areas that were tribal lands but there was no individual ownership.Sorry if you didn't understand me....

The difference between the Palestinians and the Indians is that the Indians were greatly outnumbered over time and over matched in technology. The Palestinians are not outnumbered and while the Israelis may have beter technology, the Palestinians have equally powerful allies.

The Indians spirit was broken and the will to fight was lost. The Palestinians have been fighting with the Israelis ever since Sarah gave birth to Isaac and kicked Rachel and Ishmael out. They are two peoples from the same origin that have a blood fued that has spanned 1000s of years. Does anyone really think that Barack Obama or anyone else has the power to make that go away?

The only solution is for one party to give up "ownership" of the area and that is not happening until the world ends.

Actually, it is not a myth.

Owing land was an alien concept for the Indians.

They believed they belonged to the land, not the land to them.

. . . Operating with that mindset, they signed pieces of paper which effectively gave away their land to the white man.

The Indians not having a concept of ownership is a myth. It was not the same as ours with paperwork and legalities involved but they understood "ours". They did not understand how something,, like a land treaty, could outlive the individual. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn