Bedouin Israelis Receive 'Award for Zionism' for IDF Activism

Discussion in 'Middle East' started by Thunderbolt, Aug 9, 2015.

  1. Thunderbolt

    Thunderbolt Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, evil, racist, Fascist, genocidal etc. State of Israel...
     
  2. georgephillip

    georgephillip Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,012
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    "Twenty-six Bedouin communities petitioned the High Court of Justice on Monday asking that a plan to build a new Bedouin town north of Jericho be frozen.

    "Israel’s Civil Administration in the West Bank, which is behind the plan, intends to forcibly relocate three Bedouin tribes there once the town, called Talet Nueima, is built."

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.629715

    Jews want all the land between the River and the sea for themselves, and they will not accept a non-Jew minority of more than 20% of the total population.

    Who knew some Jews are evil, racist, fascist, genocidal psychopaths?
    Bedouins...that's who
     
  3. Thunderbolt

    Thunderbolt Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
  4. georgephillip

    georgephillip Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,012
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
  5. Thunderbolt

    Thunderbolt Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not "hasbara", but emeth (truth).
     
  6. georgephillip

    georgephillip Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,012
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Like Likud is shalom (peace, harmony, absence of agitation or discord).
     
  7. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So are you against a building of an Arab city in the West Bank for the Arabs that are living without permits near Jericho? Which means, the building of this city of "Talet Nueima" will make the status of those Arabs from "illegal" to "legal".

    It is in contradiction with your claim that "Jews want it all".

    The Likud was behind of Hebron and Wye plan that were plans of giving lands to Arabs- contradicts your claim that "Jews want to all".
     
  8. georgephillip

    georgephillip Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,012
    Likes Received:
    388
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Since Jews decide what is "legal" and what is "illegal" throughout all the land between the River and the sea, either directly or indirectly through their control of the PLO on the West Bank, the forced relocation of Bedouins from lands they occupied before Israel became a state, any permits issued by Jews are self-serving, at best.

    And yes...
    palestinan_map.jpg
    Jews want it all.
     
  9. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And yet Israel gave lands to the Arabs in the West Bank and so in Gaza. Israel gave responsibility over lands in the West Bank and Gaza and so on. Israel is building new Arab city in the West Bank as you showed, all that and more are contradicting your claims.


    This map is ineccurate.
    1) In 1946, there was no state that was called "Palestine", but was a land that called "Palestine" and which according to the "Mandate for Palestine" that was signed in 1920 and later adopted by the League of Nations described "Palestine" as a place where the Jews have connection to, hence they have the rights over "Palestine" to reconstitute their national home.
    2) the map that shows the situation in 1947 is talking about the UN partition plan, which was never accepted to fullfil. The UN offered the Arabs and the Jews that plan, so if both side would agreed on it, then it could be fullfiled, and yet it wasnt the case, while the Jews accepted and Arabs rejected which means that the UN partition plan from 1947 deosnt valid no more and according to that it cant be relied on.
    3) The map that shows the situation in 1949-1967 was an agreed reality until 1967. such reality was agreed upon in Rhodes Agreements and which in such agreements was stated that the 1949 armistice lines couldn't be used or related to as borders of states, hence no one can rely on the reality until 1967 as something that some state needs to have such borders.
    4) the map that shows the reality in 2011 it was also agreed upon in the 90's.
     
  10. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the Jewish national home in Palestine is conditional upon 100% respecting non-Jewish civil and religious rights in Palestine.

    Israel has failed miserably to protect or respect non-Jewish rights in Palestine, which means their right to all of Palestine is null & void.
     
  11. xavierphoenix

    xavierphoenix New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like georgephillip says Talet Neima isn't meant for Palestinians that are freely moving there(Palestinian rarely receive permits forcing them to build illegally and then having their homes often demolished while Israeli settlements grow, at end of post has excerpt from article describing how difficult it's for Palestinian to receive building permits). The town is being built to forcibly move three Bedouin tribes many of them located in areas like E-1 area between Jerusalem and settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. Haaretz article details the issue below.

    "Twenty-six Bedouin communities petitioned the High Court of Justice on Monday asking that a plan to build a new Bedouin town north of Jericho be frozen.

    Israel’s Civil Administration in the West Bank, which is behind the plan, intends to forcibly relocate three Bedouin tribes there once the town, called Talet Nueima, is built.

    Wednesday is the deadline for filing objections to the plan with the Civil Administration’s planning office. Dozens of objections have already been submitted, and dozens more are expected to arrive Wednesday, mainly from Bedouin communities and from Palestinian villages located near the proposed town.

    The court petition, filed by Bedouin communities near Jerusalem that are slated to be relocated to Talet Nueima, argued that they were never consulted about the plan. The Bedouin say the plan gives no consideration to their traditional way of life or sources of livelihood. But unlike the objections filed with the planning office, the petition focused not on flaws in the plan itself, but on procedural flaws in the planning process.

    The plan calls for relocating some 12,500 Bedouin from the Jahalin, Kaabneh and Rashaida tribes to Talet Nueima. This is the largest plan the Civil Administration has drafted for West Bank Palestinians since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.

    If the plan comes to fruition, the evacuation of the Bedouin tribes would free up additional lands for settlement construction, especially in the E1 corridor between Jerusalem and the settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim. Two of the tribes currently live east of Jerusalem and the third in the Jordan Valley.

    The plan would force the three tribes to live together, in violation of their customs. Moreover, concentrating them north of Jericho would affect all the nearby Palestinian villages economically, environmentally, demographically and culturally.

    Both Bedouin and Palestinians fear Talet Nueima would become an island of poverty whose residents would have no opportunities for employment in the area. They also fear there would be social friction and competition over scarce water resources. "
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/.premium-1.629715

    Many Jews/Israelis don't want it all with Labor under Barak and Kadima gov under Olmert were very sincere in there negations. Taba ended with a declaration from both sides saying there were closing then ever. Negotiations between Olmert and Abbas were closer with both of them agreeing they were months away from a deal and ran out of time to solve differences like Ariel, Har Homa. Security experts like former Shin Bet heads also don't support holding onto the West Bank.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?_r=0
    http://www.israelnsp.org/what-they-say/a-viable-solution.html
    http://en.cis.org.il/members/

    It's more accurate to say the right doesn't want to give up the West Bank or made any sincere effort on issues with Israel control of the West Bank especially settlements with Netanyahu preferring managing the solution while those like Naftali Bennet prefer annexation(in his case just annexing area C so they can have most of the West Bank without most of the Palestinians). On Hebron in 1997 Israel left most of Hebron but kept the settlers there along with soldiers to guard them despite being known as among the most radical settlers. The Wye accord called for Israel military to withdraw from some Palestinian towns. The Wye accord didn't do anything on issues like settlements or house demolition.

    The only time Likud did was under Ariel Sharon with disengagement plan when he left Gaza and dismantled four settlements in the West Bank. Many in Likud opposed the plan with Likud cabinet ministers Limor Livnat, Danny Naveh, Yisrael Katz, Tzachi Hanegbi, and Bibi voting against it in voting on first phrase of disengagement with Bibi resigning afterward. Those in Likud that supported the move like Livni, Olmert, Mofaz,etc. left Likud and joined Sharon's Kadima party. This has meant few moderates are left in Likud with many members of Likud like Ze'ev Elkin supporting anti democratic laws like boycott law(Likud historically has been a nationalist but a liberal party with Menachem Begin known for being a democrat, for example refusing David Ben Gurion's request while he was prime minister and Begin opposition leader to approve administrative detention on known critic of Israeli establishment Uri Arvnery). While we don't known for sure due to Sharon having a stroke in 2006, he probably did plan to disengage back to the fence.
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-quits-government-over-disengagement-1.166110

    "According to Israeli data, Palestinians living in Area C submitted 3,750 applications for building permits between 2000 and 2012. Just 5.6 percent of those applications -- a total of 211 -- were approved. Bimkom, an Israeli-based nonprofit group of architects and planners, recently accessed more current data, which are not yet public, and found that only one permit was approved in 2014. The number of people requesting such permits has declined steadily over the years as Palestinians lose faith in the process."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/palestinians-west-bank-demolition_55af1787e4b0a9b94852fa25
     
  12. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    "The Bedouin say the plan gives no consideration to their traditional way of life or sources of livelihood."
    Realy? The Bedouin tradional way of life is by relocating themselves from one place to another, so first of all this plan does not harm the Bedouin's traditional way of life.
    Secondl, the Arabs filed a patition to the court regarding this plan, as they should have done. after the deadline will be over, the court will disscus about the Bedouin patition, and the court will decide regarding this subject. All the rest of the conclusion you made and the state of mind you are in regardig this subject is jumping ahead before the case was over.

    Ok, so they fear, and...? The fear regarding the city from the Arab side does not necessarily will happen. Let's take a step at a time, shell we?

    Has nothing to do with Talet Nueima.

    Not only in the disengagement, but also Netanyahu was the man behind Hebron and Wye agreements that were an evecuation from territories from Judea and Samaria, so your claim that "the right doesnt want to give up the West Bank or made any sincere effort on issues with Israel control of the West Bank" is just not up with the facts. The right did make agreements and did evecuate settlements and territories in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza.

    * the disengagement was a move of a right-wing government, yes?
     
  13. xavierphoenix

    xavierphoenix New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The traditional Bedouin way is nomadic moving from place to place of their choosing not being forced to live at one spot by a government so Israel can have e-1 area and Jordan valley.

    Netanyahu has acknowledged in a video where he was unaware the mic was on that he wasn't serious about the Oslo Accords and tried to drag it out(excerpt from video is below). The IDF withdrew from most of Hebron and left the settlers there despite being known to harass their Palestinian neighbor and known to be among the most radical settlers. The Wye accord was an accord where the IDF agreed to withdraw from some Palestinian areas and did nothing to address Palestinian grievances with occupation like house demolition and settlements. This was also the same government where Ariel Sharon while minister of national infrastructure and foreign minister was saying "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay oursÂ… Everything we donÂ’t grab will go to them". So all of Bibi's governments are good examples of the right refusing to compromise on the West Bank.

    "The Oslo accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: “Will you act according to them?” and I answered: “Yes, subject to reciprocity and limiting the withdrawals.” But how do you limit the withdrawals? I interpret the accords in such a way that will enable me to stop this rush towards the 1967 borders. [So] how do we do it?

    [Narrator] The Oslo accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different stages, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

    [Natanyahu] No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as IÂ’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

    [Woman] Right [laughs]. The Beit SheÂ’an settlements. The Beit SheÂ’an Valley.

    [Natanyahu] How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what defined military sites were. I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time … which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.

    [Woman interrupts] And despite that, one of our own people, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo accord, gives them, for example, Hebron. I never understood that.

    [Natanyahu] Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It’s the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: “What would your father say?” I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father’s position?… He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two per cent than to give a 100 per cent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two per cent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal, instead of 100 per cent.”The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price."
    http://www.redressonline.com/2010/0...anyahu-i-deceived-us-to-destroy-oslo-accords/

    Sharon's was right wing led government but was technically national unity gov. National Religious party left the government in late 2004 after disengagement was approved by government making Sharon's gov a minority. Shortly afterward gov's majority was restored with Labor joining gov. Shinui also helped by voting for the disengagement in the knesset. As mentioned before most of the Likud that backed disengagement left Likud like Olmert, Livni, Mofaz and went to Kadima. Assuming, Sharon intended to disengage back to the fence he probably would not have gotten Likud to go along with it considering Sharon in September 2005 narrowly defeated a vote(52-48 percent) by central committee members that supported Bibi to move election for party leader from April 2006 to November 2005.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/opinion/ariel-sharons-choice-israel-or-likud.html?_r=0
     
  14. Independant thinker

    Independant thinker Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,196
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bah, you idiots. Jews are cowardly bullies. Their women bully our men (as is socially permitted) and their men bully our women (as is socially pemitted).

    You bunch of brick layers have no idea.

    It's subtle. Not scary. Just different.

    Don't you be scared.
     
  15. HBendor

    HBendor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,043
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0

    The majority of Arabs in Jerusalem would like to be Israelis



    Israeli Arabs
    Israeli citizenship
    jerusalem
    Judea and Samaria
    Israeli Arab
    A Palestinian and an Israeli chatting in Hebron, (Gershon Elinson/Flash90)
    A majority of Palestinian Arabs living in Jerusalem recognize the benefits of the State of Israel and would like to be citizens, a new poll shows.

    A majority of Palestinians living in Jerusalem would welcome Israeli citizenship, according to a recent poll conducted by a Palestinian research institute.

    http://unitedwithisrael.org/majorit...Dolphin+Spy'&utm_term=F140528YS23-250x170_jpg
     
  16. Thunderbolt

    Thunderbolt Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
  17. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, if they dont have permits then it is perfectly legal to evecuate them from the areas they live on. If they have all sorts of arguments against such act? they can fill a patition to the Israeli Supreme Court, something that they already did and now are waiting that the court will make a hearing regarding the matter.

    It is much well known that the area of the Jewish community in Hebron was bought and now belonging to Jews, and which according to a memo that been accepted and signed in 2008 between Abu-Mazen and Israel that all areas that belong to the Jews (which means areas that Jews bought) need to be return to the rightfull owner, including the Jewish community in Hebron, hence, the existance of Jews in Hebron (in the Jewish community in Hebron) is perfectly legal.

    The responsible for Wye Agreement was Natanyahu, which was following Oslo Accords (in the right-wing government of '96).
    The purpose of Wye Agreement and Hebron Agreement was solely to evecuate territories in the West Bank.

    Same Ariel Sharon was the responsible for the Disengagement in 2005.

    Oslo Accords according to the ones the supported it, was to enable a creation of an Arab state in the borders of '67. Now, if Arafat wouldnt launched the Second Intifadah in 2000, which was a well thought act, probably then the Israeli government wouldnt lost their confidence in the intentions of the Arabs, and would let Oslo to be fully fulfilled, but because the Second Intifadah stopped the process that Oslo started, which can be seen today, then probably today would have an Arab state in the '67 borders.

    It really doesnt contradict the fact that the Disengagement was an act of Sharon and the Likud, a right-wing party, and which Bibi also was a supporter of this plan (he voted for the plan).
     
  18. xavierphoenix

    xavierphoenix New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2015
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As mentioned before and again below it's extremely difficult for Palestinians to get difficult, forcing them to build illegally and then there buildings are often demolished.
    "According to Israeli data, Palestinians living in Area C submitted 3,750 applications for building permits between 2000 and 2012. Just 5.6 percent of those applications -- a total of 211 -- were approved. Bimkom, an Israeli-based nonprofit group of architects and planners, recently accessed more current data, which are not yet public, and found that only one permit was approved in 2014. The number of people requesting such permits has declined steadily over the years as Palestinians lose faith in the process."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/palestinians-west-bank-demolition_55af1787e4b0a9b94852fa25

    "It is much well known that the area of the Jewish community in Hebron was bought and now belonging to Jews, and which according to a memo that been accepted and signed in 2008 between Abu-Mazen and Israel that all areas that belong to the Jews (which means areas that Jews bought) need to be return to the rightfull owner, including the Jewish community in Hebron, hence, the existance of Jews in Hebron (in the Jewish community in Hebron) is perfectly legal."
    First of all, the memo did not say all areas belong to the Jews. The draft memo suggests that the Palestinians offer Jews who lost property due to 1948 war to have property returned if possible or if not financially composite them. The draft memo also in annex 3 has arguments against offering that. The 2008 draft memo was part of 2008 talks between Abbas and Olmert for a Palestinian state. The memo has no legal standing since talks ended and no Palestinian state agreed on. Link to text of draft memo is below.
    http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/projects/thepalestinepapers/201218203525218283.html

    Kiryat Arba(Hebron is a Palestinian city in the West Bank, it had a large Jewish minority declining substantially after 1929 massacre by Arab rioters left 64 to 67 Jews dead, 435 Jews survived due to assistance of their Arab neighbors, last family left in 1947, Kiryat Arba is settlement that was set up on an abandoned army base in 1971 on the outskirts of Hebron) is a settlement; which most of the world including all EU foreign ministers(including allies like Netherlands), UNSC, ICJ, international red cross, former legal adviser to Israeli foreign ministery ;Theodore Meron, etc. regard as illegal. This also doesn't change the settler's behavior in Hebron which is known to be among the most radical(you don't seem to be bothered that they harass their Palestinian neighbors, openly venerate Baruch Goldstein, have a street named after Meir Kahane who called for all Arabs including Israeli citizens expelled from Israel,and their yeshiva is led by a rabbi who called Goldstein holier than victims of the holocaust and endorsed King's Torah).
    http://imeu.org/article/state-sanctioned-incitement-israels-extremist-rabbis
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebron#Division_of_Hebron
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryat_Arba

    The Hebron and Wye accord was not a serious effort to evacuate from the territories. The agreements called for withdrawal of Israeli military from some areas of West Bank. The accords showed no compromise on issues like settlements which after being slowed down under Rabin and Peres picked up under Bibi. Again Bibi explained below how he dragged it out and never meant to withdraw from areas like settlements.
    "[Natanyahu] How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what defined military sites were. I received a letter – to me and to Arafat, at the same time … which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to me and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron agreement, or rather, ratify it. It had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo accord.

    Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two per cent than to give a 100 per cent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two per cent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal, instead of 100 per cent.”The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price."

    Beside this admission by Bibi; Sharon then minister in Bibi's gov( keep in mind this is before he moved toward center, before events like Geneva Accord, letters of refusal to serve in the territories by pilots and commandos, this is according to an interview by one of Sharon's advisers is some of the reasons he did disengagement) was known for stating
    "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours… Everything we don’t grab will go to them"
    http://www.jmcc.org/Documentsandmaps.aspx?id=698

    With this you have no evidence that Bibi was serious about Oslo Accords with Bibi admitting at that moment he stopped the Oslo Accords. At the most Bibi agreed for Israeli military withdrawal from some areas of West Bank but never a serious effort to withdraw from any settlements.

    I agree that Arafat launching second intifada (along with leaving the legacy of PA as extremely corrupt autocratic institution) is among the biggest reasons if not the biggest for Oslo Accords failing. That doesn't negate what I wrote above; the argument is on whether Bibi's gov was serious about ending control of West Bank not on whether Arafat was a good partner(he wasn't for reasons stated above; ironically Olmert who opposed Oslo Accords, would come much closer to a deal with Arafat's successor)

    Bibi voted for disengagement plan before on the belief that disengagement would be sent to a referendum. As pointed out before;After cabinet started voting on different phases of the disengagement Bibi voted along with six other Likud ministers against first phase and resigned shortly afterwards. Again most in Likud that supported disengagement left Likud meaning that there are very few in the right left that is serious on ending control of West Bank(Dan Meridor and Avi Dichter is the only ones that I can think of at the moment) .
     
  19. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Bimkon? An organization that get funded by the NDC, which is a "Palestinian" organization that facilitated and funded the “Palestinian NGO Code of Conduct”, that rejects any kind of normalization with Israel (or as they put it "Occupier") and according to that choose the organization that he would send money to.
    Source: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_development_center_ndc_0

    According to the Memo:
    Which means, because in the Jewish community in Hebron, Jews lived there before 1948, they enjoy a right of return, hence, cant be evecuated nor be in "Palestinian" hands.
    And under the title "property rights" it says:
    Which means that every land that Jews owned in the West Bank have the rights to have their land restored to them, since the PLO doesnt shows signs that they would financialy compensation the Jews for their loses. According to that, Shuafat, Qalandiya, Dir al-Balah etc. need to be restored to Jewish hands.

    Kiryat Arba has all the permits to exist. According to Order 561 of the IDF from 1971, Kiryay Arba was founded as "Local committee", and in 1981 Kiryat Arba became "local council" according to Order 892.

    The Wye and Hebron agreements were fully fulfilled by Barak, after the Natanyahu's administration was started to fulfilled.

    Was knowing, and yet he did the Disangagement.

    I already replied to such parts earlier. Please re-read it.
     
  20. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Israel stole lots of private land from Arabs that were exiled during the 1948 War.

    in fact, Israel stole lots of private land from Arabs that simply fled to other parts of the state.

    is Israeli obligated to give this land back?
     
  21. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Israel has been taking land from the Palestinians. They've taken most of it, which means the only question worth asking is when will the ethnic cleansing be over.
    And when they have it all, will they stop there.
     
  22. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Israel already offered the Arabs to go back to the lands they live on, they didnt want to.
     
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Israel offered to let back all 710,000 refugees?

    lol!!! you know thats not true.

    Israel also stole land from internal Arab refugees.

    still havent given back that land
     
  24. stuntman

    stuntman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    4,616
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    They offer a return of 100,000 Arabs into Israel. Israel is not responsible for all the 700,000 since most of the Arabs left the Land of Israel when the Arab countries urged them to leave.
     
  25. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    lol!!!!

    even you know that's not true.
     

Share This Page