Ramadan Banquet Blown to Smithereens

[webfusion]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022851.html

I am appalled. Islamic terrorists have no limits. None.

As I contemplate this horrific attack in Islamabad, it merely leads me to believe more than ever, how the tiny State of Israel is correct in placing physical barriers as impediments & bulwarks against infiltration from the adjoining lands that are terrorist-infested by HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.

 

[kerikiwi]

the tiny State of Israel is correct in placing physical barriers as impediments & bulwarks against infiltration from the adjoining lands that are terrorist-infested by HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.

Agreed, but not correct in, by their use, annexing adjoining lands.

 

[Thunder]

Israel has the right to place all the barriers it likes, on its legal border with Palestine. Erecting a wall which takes lands in dispute, thereby making facts on the ground and making negotiations over that land more complicated, is unjust and deceitful.

Israel swore that the wall was not permanent and not meant to create facts on the ground. They clearly LIED.

Its facts like this that are the reason why I have such a problem with the liberal democratic State of Israel.

 

[Beerina]

"LIED"? That wall looks pretty prefabricated and dissassembleable to me.



Still, I'd rather live in Israel than in Palestine. Even if I were a Palestinian.

 

[webfusion]

(on the) "legal border with Palestine."

No such thing. You know that, so why are you making stuff up?

 

[geni]

No such thing. You know that, so why are you making stuff up?

Interesting claim. UN would probably disagree. Well unless you are going to try for the argument that since none of the relivant resolutions were followed the place is still technicaly under the british mandate which would at least offer some amusement value.

 

[geni]

"LIED"? That wall looks pretty prefabricated and dissassembleable to me.

Doesn't really matter how dissassembleable it is. Physicaly cutting off land is generaly one of the first steps towards claiming it as your own.

 

[geni]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1022851.html

I am appalled. Islamic terrorists have no limits. None.

Actualy they have quite a collection. Obviously what exactly those limits are will vary from group to group.

 

[webfusion]

Agreed, but not correct in, by their use, annexing adjoining lands.

The Israeli Supreme Court has made various reviews of the path of the fence, and routing has been altered in some areas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/30/israel1
(Article mentioning a 2004 ruling)

and
http://palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article626
(Article about the situation now in Sept. 2008)

Yes, the barrier is problematic on several levels (including being the subject of a Hague Court opinion) but after all is said and done, since it effectively keeps out bombers, and it keeps the citizens of Israel safe from infiltrations of jihadists, then I'm OK with having the wall right where it is, in their face.

 

[webfusion]

Doesn't really matter how dissassembleable it is. Physicaly cutting off land is generaly one of the first steps towards claiming it as your own.

It is ours.
This is Eretz Yisrael.
Whose is it, if not ours?

Interesting claim.

What is interesting about it? Are you prepared to show where Palestine's legal borders are?

 

[geni]

It is ours.
This is Eretz Yisrael.
Whose is it, if not ours?

There are two fundimentaly flawed assumptions in that question.

What is interesting about it? Are you prepared to show where Palestine's legal borders are?

I belive that was explained to you in 1947 in fairly straightforward terms. Although it appears that most people are prepared to accept the 1949 Armistice lines.

 

[webfusion]

I believe that was explained to you in 1947 in fairly straightforward terms.

Nope. Your beliefs are incorrect. "Palestine" was not defined at all. The soon-to-be declared State of Israel was defined (as a partition of all eastern Mandated Palestine --- don't forget, the 75% Western portion had already been elimininated from inclusion, although that was in direct violation of the League of Nations Mandate for the formation of a Jewish National Home in those areas).

 

[webfusion]

Interesting claim. UN would probably disagree. Well unless you are going to try for the argument that since none of the relivant resolutions were followed the place is still technicaly under the british mandate which would at least offer some amusement value.

It so happens that around 25% of the Palestinians, in a just-released poll by A-Najah University, would like to have their "Palestine State" include the lands of Jordan, as they were determined by the League of Nations in the post WW1 period.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1023705.html

 

[The Fool]

Nope. Your beliefs are incorrect. "Palestine" was not defined at all. The soon-to-be declared State of Israel was defined (as a partition of all eastern Mandated Palestine --- don't forget, the 75% Western portion had already been elimininated from inclusion, although that was in direct violation of the League of Nations Mandate for the formation of a Jewish National Home in those areas).

can you still not get over the fact you were not given any of Jordan? Do you want some? I think probably not so why do you constantly gripe about it?

 

[webfusion]

can you still not get over the fact you were not given any of Jordan? Do you want some? I think probably not so why do you constantly gripe about it?

We have already obtained some. Or didn't you notice?

 

[The Fool]

We have already obtained some. Or didn't you notice?

[qimg]http://inpursuitofjustice.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/settlement1.jpg[/qimg]

sorry you will have to use all your powers of confusion to explain that one....what bit of land that was given to (trans)Jordan at the time of the partition do you want?

 

[webfusion]

The Ramadan Bomb-Fest continues unabated:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1024836.html
A 200-kilogram car bomb struck a crowded residential street (near a primary school) in the Syrian capital of Damascus on Saturday, killing 17 people and injuring 14 others, Syrian television reported.

==================================

T-F, since you apparently are in need of some history lessons ----

By the time of the United Nations resolution 181 in 1947, there had already been substantial truncation of the overall lands of Palestine as "Palestine" had been defined in the previous 100 years. Do yourself a favor and review what was considered "Palestine" throughout the 1800's. It included lands that after WW1 became the French Mandate (Syria and Lebanon) and British Mandate, as the whole of Ottoman Palestine was chopped up into new bite-size pieces.

That's right T-F, take a close look at the Sykes-Picot Agreements. Then at the Treaty of Lausanne. Then at the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
http://www.jewishagency.org/NR/rdonlyres/BF1CFEE4-915D-437A-8385-B5F9EF1CE445/12067/MANDATE.gif

So, as things stand today, Israel is in posession of some areas of Historical Palestine that had, at some point, been defined as "Jordan" --- such as this specific area:

 

[The Fool]

T-F, since you apparently are in need of some history lessons ----

Lol.....no web, just trying to cut through your policy of confusion.

By the time of the United Nations resolution 181 in 1947, there had already been substantial truncation of the overall lands of Palestine as "Palestine" had been defined in the previous 100 years. Do yourself a favor and review what was considered "Palestine" throughout the 1800's. It included lands that after WW1 became the French Mandate (Syria and Lebanon) and British Mandate, as the whole of Ottoman Palestine was chopped up into new bite-size pieces.

That's right T-F, take a close look at the Sykes-Picot Agreements. Then at the Treaty of Lausanne. Then at the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
http://www.jewishagency.org/NR/rdonlyres/BF1CFEE4-915D-437A-8385-B5F9EF1CE445/12067/MANDATE.gif

So, as things stand today, Israel is in posession of some areas of Historical Palestine that had, at some point, been defined as "Jordan" --- such as this specific area:
[qimg]http://www.interfaithstrength.com/images/TM100_files/templemount.jpg[/qimg]

I'll try and keep this very very simple to see if you can answer the actual question and not something else.

when the land east of the Jordan was proclaimed as "trans Jordan" which parf of that land , if any, should have been given to the new state of Israel? I ask this because every time the pertition is mentioned you seem to whine about all the land east of the jordan being allocated to Jordan.

lets see if you can confuse that one.