Black Lives Don’t Matter in Israel

Best be Aware
When you wield a two edged sword with little expertise in the ART
................................... Chances are you are going to get cut
................................... Simply because what works for you, Aslo works for them

 

Say what you will. It's your eternal soul at stake. This short life is just a proving ground for it.

 

They're all in breach of international law. They're criminals.

 

According to the UN Charter, that one of it's articles protects the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate, then no. They have all the rights to settle there.

 

Mandate for Palestine was concluded by the UN

RELIEVES the Palestine Commission from the further exercise of responsibilities under resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947.
B

Resolution Adopted without Reference to a Committee

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

HAVING ADOPTED a resolution providing for the appointment of a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities,

RESOLVES to express its full appreciation for the work performed by the Palestine Commission in pursuance of its mandate from the General Assembly.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/C5E97ED405EA5D2D802564990059FE0A
-----

 

It didnt conclude the document of the Mandate, but concluded the "Palestine Commision" because of Resolution 181, that the UN thought that it will be fulfilled. But since reslution 181 was never been fulfilled, then the document of the Mandate couldnt end.

 

After the 1948 War, Israel was 100% in favor and supported an Arab state being created in the West Bank, but they said it should be left to the Arabs if they were to be an independent state in the West Bank, or be part of Jordan.

This shows that the Israelis felt no claim upon the West Bank, and were happy to see it not be part of the Jewish state, but be part of an Arab state.

17. On 15 June 1949, in a foreign affairs debate in Israel's Knesset (Parliament), Foreign Minister Sharett stated Israel's policy on the future of Arab Palestine as follows:
"As for the frontier between the State of Israel and the area west of the Jordan which is not included in Israel, there, too, our aim is peace, and peace negotiations. We have always declared that we should prefer to see a separate Arab State in that area, but we have not set this as a condition sine qua non to a settlement. This question, too, is a matter for discussion."

In the discussion which followed the end of this speech, Sharett declared that Israel had proposed to the Conciliation Commission to organize a plebiscite in Arab Palestine to determine whether these regions should be attached to Transjordan or become an independent Arab State. An independent Arab State would be preferable to Israel but the Israeli Government would accept the verdict of a plebiscite, he stated.

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/4ECBF3578B6149C50525657100507FAB

- - - Updated - - -

hahaha!!!!

Israel knows the Mandate for Palestine is over. That's why they were happy to see an Arab state created in the West Bank.

 

So now we are living in 1949? Do you know that Sharett is no longer the Israeli Foreign Minister, right?

Israeli politicans can say whatever they pleased, because after all it is their own opinion, but the law say different. The law protects the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate, and since the UN never concluded it, then it is still valid.

 

The Foreign Minister of Israel represents the official view of the Israeli govt. relating to foreign affairs.

Israel called for the creation of an Arab State in the West Bank, or the West Bank becoming part of Jordan, but the Arabs of the West Bank would decide the fate of the territory.

This was official Israeli policy in 1949.

 

Do you know that the current year is 2015 and not 1949, right?

Israeli politicans can say whatever they pleased, because after all it is their own opinion, but the law say different. The law protects the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate, and since the UN never concluded it, then it is still valid.

 

he wasn't just some low-level Israeli politician, he was the Israeli Foreign Minister, and he was stating the official Israeli position regarding the West Bank.

According to him, Israel prefered to see an Arab state created in the West Bank, but would tolerate the West Bank becoming part of Jordan, if that's what the Arab peoples of the West Bank decided.

This was the official Israeli position.

 

Yes and his point its 2015.

My point is and zip it went over your head, since 1949 not one Palestinian, not one Arab leader, has or will come out and acknowledge Jews have the right to exist in the Jewish state of Israel. Not one. That hasn't changed.

What has changed are the terror cells.

As well what does it have to do with the thread which accused all Israelis of hating blacks?

Your point is meaningless.

 

I never talked about only "low-level politicians", but I talked about all Israeli politicians. And all Israeli politicians can say whatever they please, but the law say different. The law protects the rights that were granted to the Jews in the document of the Mandate, and because the UN never concluded it, then it is still valid.

 

Foreign Minister Sharett was a highly respected representative of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was not stating his personal opinion, but the official view of the Israeli government regarding the West Bank.


"We have always declared that we should prefer to see a separate Arab State in that area, but we have not set this as a condition sine qua non to a settlement. This question, too, is a matter for discussion."

In the discussion which followed the end of this speech, Sharett declared that Israel had proposed to the Conciliation Commission to organize a plebiscite in Arab Palestine to determine whether these regions should be attached to Transjordan or become an independent Arab State. An independent Arab State would be preferable to Israel but the Israeli Government would accept the verdict of a plebiscite, he stated.

again, he is stating Israel's official position, not merely his own personal opinion.

 

Did you stop to think before you asked that question. Because had you, you would realize dragnets, road-blocks, check points are often used by police not just in Chicago but all over the US and Canada. Its a police technique regularly used for many things such as:

1-trying to contain an area where a known criminal fleeing a crime may be in;
2-to profile and screen out people drinking.

Get real. Don't pretend Israel is the only country in the world where people go through check points and stop comparing a neighbourhood not the scene of indiscriminate terrorism to one that is. That in itself makes your comment not only pointless but odious. You deliberately compare situations that are not the same.

If terrorists were on the loose in south Chicago or anywhere else in the US of course there would be check points. What a ridiculous thing to try suggest would not happen if Americans faced the same situation.

In fact do you ask the same question about check points, in Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Sudan, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, China, Russia, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia your beloved homeland?

What are you suggesting no other nation that Israel uses check points? Get real with the phony comparisons that suggest one standard for Israel while you ignore the very thing you criticize being a norm in the Arab world.

 

When Sharett served as the Israeli foreign minister, does not contradict that he didnt state his own opinions. Every government forms it's own agenda on verious things according to the politicians's own opinions.

Let us not forget as well, that Ben Gurion, the Israeli prime minister in 1949, stated numerous of times that there is no such thing as "Palestinians". And he was a left-winger.

As I already stated:
Do you know that the current year is 2015 and not 1949?

 

Eadora your response to me was to cherry pick another incident unrelated to the cause of the unfortunate Eritrean's death and throw it out as if it is yet another example of racism that justifies you then calling all Israelis racists.

The very incident you cherry picked is not about racism. Never was. You can't even smeer Israeli Jews without giving an example of racism.

What you have done is take an isolated incident and ask people to infer from it all Israeli Jews are racist.

This means any black person in the world who has committed a crime makes all blacks racists. It means any white person who has committed a crime makes all white people a racist, and on and on. You engage in classic bigotry. You take the action of an individual, then use it to justify promulgating a negative stereotype of an entire people. You not only spew that bigoted assumption and negative stereotype, but you would have people believe all Jews in Israel think exactly the same about blacks as this latest idiot you cherry picked from a new story.

Eadora, all you have done is render your own accusation even more nonsensical.

You are now doing nothing more than name calling of an entire people taking acts that are not even racist to base your bigotry on.

 

Sharett was stating the official Israeli position, not his personal opinion.

he specifically refers to "WE" and "ISRAEL", which means its not his opinion, but the official Israeli view.

 

Every government forms it's own agenda on verious things according to the politicians's own opinions.

 

so basically you are accusing Sharett, one of Israel's Founding Fathers, Israel's first Foreign Minister and signatory of the Israeli Decleration of Independence, of being a liar???

wow.

 

It was Israel's official view and position after the 1948 War, that the West Bank should be come an independent Arab state. But if the peoples of the West Bank instead chose to become part of Jordan, Israel would respect that decision.

 

I cant accuse him to be a liar, since what he stated was his personal opinion. And his personal opinion is not as what the law says.
The law says different then what Sharett stated.

 

it wasn't his opinion, it was Israel's official position.

unless you think Sharett was lying, and in that case he should have been removed form his position immediately. And yet, he was not, and continued to serve under Ben-Gurion.

looks like Israel was pleased with his performance as Foreign Minister, and accurately represented Israel on the world stage.

 

As I already wrote to you:
Every government forms it's own agenda on verious things according to the politicians's own opinions.

As I already wrote to you:
I cant accuse him to be a liar, since what he stated was his personal opinion. And his personal opinion is not as what the law says.
The law says different then what Sharett stated.

 

I posted an official UN document, showing the official comments of Israel's first Foreign Minister and signer of the Decleration of Indipendence. And you say that when he claims to be speaking for Israel, he is lying.

So either you are accusing Sharett of lying, or you are accusing the UN document of lying.

which is it?