there is one very BIG BULLY running around in the world today.

And if you dont hand over your resources to its private corporations you may get bombed with these smart bombs or perhaps they may even interfere with your political system and install tyranical fascist puppet regimes that will deal with its population and bend over to washington

I wonder who this BIG BULLY is ???

In GOD we TRUST!

__________________
Supreme Executive for the I.S.S.F

Actually very little Had to be 'Bought' since 2/3 of what became Israel was State Land and owned by NO Arab.. passing from the Ottomans to the British to The Jews.

There was never a self-governing state on 'palestine' since it's was called ISRAEL... the first time. (renamed 'palestina' by the Romans, not Arabs, lol)
So much for 'sovereignty'.

After WWI, Many Countries were created that weren't 100% of one ethnicity or religion.

The Kurds Sovereignty was given to a Saudi prince in Iraq.
You never see much of an issue from the 'anti-zionists' here on that.

Other 'Palestinians' didn't get sovereignty over 77% of the British Mandate that became Jordan (Palestine 1), as it was given to a Saudi Prince Abdullah, Great Grandfather of the Present Abdullah.

These Saudi Princes, unlike the Jews, didn't live, and Hadn't settled in these countries for hundreds of Years as the Jews did in what became Israel.

__________________
Brigitte Gabriel http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/cla...x/jbsa/bg.html

No its more like program sponsorship, if we dont like the message of the programming perhaps we should pull our financing.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

You already have - at least to a large degree -but you still want the UN Security Council veto rights, so you have to keep paying (some of) your "sponsorship".
http://www.globalpolicy.org/finance/index.htm

What you are saying is that you will only sponsor what you like. That is reasonable.

Problem is that it has nothing to do with sponsorship. Nothing whatsoever. You don't call the shots. You just pay your dues to be a member like everyone else. Small difference I know, but pertinent to your response This was all well debated in 1997. The US decided to continue paying rather that to lose it's Security Council right. Your choice. You stayed - as a member, not a sponsor.

Two small problems.

First you are presuming that sovereignty is, has been, and should have been the western world's "country" concept. Unfortunately it is a flawed presumption. I don't want to tell you what to do, but you might like to web-search the age-old Fellaheen system of ground sharing that existed for millenia throughout the Middle East. For a dry legal view I refer to http://pnews.org/art/4art/LANDquestion.shtml

Secondly you seem to believe that by holding a mere mandate, the British in fact had justified control over the destination of the included territory. Sure, I know that they acted as if they did, but in fact they had no such rights whatsoever. The British miserably abused their responsibilities by promising the same land to two different peoples during World War 1. One of those peoples had not controlled that land neither by occupation, nor by "country rights", nor by usage, for 2000 years. And I don't mean what are now called the Palestinians.

But such is the nature of Myths. You shoot them down in flames and they rise again, like Peter Sellers in the movie The Party. This "land ownership" is one of the most famous of the many Zionist Myths that was blown clear out of the water on this very forum about a year ago.

A very similar Myth also debated on this forum and was also shredded. The fact that there never was a Palestinian state is irrelevant when one refers to rights derived from another age and socio-political system. When Abraham arrived in Canaan - there were people living there. And they are still there. And they are not Hebrews. And they did not have a country or state. But those olive plantations where Jaffa oranges now grow had been tended by them since time immemorial.

The Kurdish issue is indeed a huge tradgedy .... HUGE .... and I am gratified that you have noted the similarities to the Palestinian tradgedy. Just for the record, I do realise that there have been many Jewish tradgedies also. But my mother taught me to question all cases where 2 'wrongs' are proposed to make a 'right'.

Seriously, if you are interested I will de-archive" these well-thrashed Myths for you.

YOU were the one who wre arguing "Bought" and owned.. thus my "2/3 was state land".

Is there a point in there?
Dioes it rebut mine that there hasn't been any self-governing 'palestine' (nor national Identity for that matter).. since it was called Israel
This is not a Myth.. this is fact.
Like everything I post and you try and obfuscate.

Lastly, I saw your 'myth' strings and there's nothing in them but your CLAIM they are myths.
Mere one or two sentence suppositions with No meat whatsoever.
I don't believe I've ever seen such empty posting on this board or any other.

__________________
Brigitte Gabriel http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/cla...x/jbsa/bg.html

Beletesri - the above is your exact quote. So as to avoid vacant cross-purposes dialogue - what exactly was YOUR point?

1) To me it seems that you are saying that the 'annexation' of real estate for the creation of '1948 Israel' was fine because the bulk of the ground did not belong to Arabs. If I am mistaken, please enlighten me as to what you really meant. If I am correct, then my rebuttal stands.

2) What has the existence or not of the name Israel or Palestine to do with the price of eggs? If the people who lived there for the past 10 000 years decide one day to call ther new country Canaan or Palestine or something else, what difference would it make to ancestral rights? Does it matter that Namibia is no longer called German South West Africa or that that name never existed in past centuries? I really dont understand your point.

3) In your most recent contribution you imply, without any support whatsoever, that the Zionist Myth threads are simply claims with no substance. Let us take Myth 1 Zionist Myth 1: Real Estate equals Sovereignty mean. Let's test your recent opinion.

Do Zionists claim that they never took any land from anyone? Do they claim that because ground was not owned by specific individuals, that it was fine to give it to someone else what had had no real control over it for more than 2700 years? If they do, then it is not just an empty claim - correct? It then remains to be seen whether it is a Myth or the real truth.

You quote me fully but take me out of context of responding to the previous discussion not "Bought".
That WAS the previous discussion..
as to the new one:
The whole Ottoman Empire was/Had to be Divided/"Annexed" into States.
Some willy-nilly by the Brits.
Jews/Jewish RESIDENTS had a valid claim to post-war (I and II) state as they had been promised before anyone thought up 'Iraq' or 'Jordan' or many other post-war states.
Why is the creation of Israel, more nefariously described as 'annexation', any more problematic?
Especially in light of the fact the Arabs were given 99% of the Ottoman Empire and 87% of the British mandate., inluding Jordan/aka Palestine 1.
You also omit, as well as Jordan (70% 'Palestinian'), Resolution 181 also Created/"annexed" 'Palestine' (II) for the Arabs, Not Just an Israel.
Nor did that creation entail the expulsion of any Arabs. That was the result of the War THEY Started.

And unlike the other "Annexations" by the Brits (or French/French Mandate for 'Lebanon'), Israel was created by a Majority Vote of a World Body.. the UN.

You keep copntradicting yourself - as to the necessity or fact of "taking" land.
You allow that they "Bought" it legally.. allow that "Arabs didn't own it", but then claim it was "Taken".

__________________
Brigitte Gabriel http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/cla...x/jbsa/bg.html

Let's do the "valid" bit first:
# Did the British make similar promises to Arab peoples including the same ground which is now occupied by Israel? Before/after/does it matter - the promise to the foreigners?
# More importantly, what right did Britain, who only held a mandate to govern on behalf of the resident peoples (exact reference available), have to promise these people's ancestral ground to a foreign third party group who had no significant presence in the area for almost 2000 years (in other words I am questioning the legal validity of that promise to certain representatives of international Jewry)?
# Validity of the two promises? [of course we all know what happened historically. You were talking about validity. I am more interested in justice]

1) You ask why there is a difference between the creation of Jordan and that of Israel? Well, Jordan was ultimately given to a people who had been living there for over 10 000 years. Israel was given to people who hadn’t lived there for almost 2000 years in defiance of the rights of those who had. See the difference?
2) Where did you get the statistic that 99% of the Ottoman empire was given to the Arabs? Reference please.
3) Are you saying that because the Jews only got a small percentage of the entire Ottoman empire, that the promise is therefore valid? Like if the front corner of your plot was given to an Indigenous American family is OK and legal, because the Local City Admin feels guilty because of an Iriquois pogrom only 150 years ago?

Same problem as above - I didn’t omit it; it is simply not relevant to our discussion of the creation of the State of Israel. You cannot call giving land to people who have occupied it for dozens of millennia annexation. With the creation of Jordan that land remained in the hands of a people who had always lived there. With the creation of the State of Israel, that land was taken away from them and given to someone else. See the difference?


I allow no such thing. I allow that Jews bought parcels of real estate legally. But to conclude from that that the creation of the State of Israel was legal and fully respected the rights of the ancestral residents, that I do NOT agree to. You are correct about the United Nations. At the time it was a very immature organisation PLUS, the West was suffering collective guilt over the holocaust tragedy. Does this make the decision just?

So here is my bottom line Injustice to the ancestral residents or not, turning back the clock to 1917 or 1948 is not practical nor just towards the Jewish people. But this does NOT mean that it was just and fair towards the historical residents who are now called Palestinans. Therefore, given this debacle of land alienation based on collective guilt more than on any established international legal norms, given that they lost very important territory because a bunch of third parties gave away their ground to provide a home for foreigners who lives on other continents, should these ancestral residents who had nothing to do with the Holocaust be subjected to yet further injustices?

And THAT is where we neatly link back to the theme of this thread – UNSC resolution 242. Capiche?

If you would look into another past/recent string just a few down the page: "Who lived there when".. and see post #4

It rather defeats everything you had to say

Further, many of the Arabs now called 'Palestinians' (you gotta love these new made up names for arabs from Egypt to Iraq) were as new or NewER than the Jewish residents- having FOLLOWED in the zionist settlers for 50+ years) for the economic opportunity they created.
Just as Today Tens of Thousands Flock to Israel Daily for Jobs.. at least before the intifada.. and even since do.

"One always finds in Palestine Arabs who have been in the country only a few weeks or a few months...Since they are themselves strangers in a strange land, they are the loudest to cry: 'Out with the Jews!...Amongst them are to be found representatives of every Arab country: Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan and Iraq."

Ladislas Farago, Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Putnam 1937) p17

__________________
Brigitte Gabriel http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/cis/cla...x/jbsa/bg.html