Jat

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

But their definition of "Palestine" includes all of Israel.

Israel hadn't exist for nearly 3000 years beforehand.

Ah, you show your true colors. You want the holocaust repeated.

If there is another Holocaust it wouldn't be by anything which I may have said. It sounds like here you are comparing me to a Nazi? Doesn't this mean that by doing this that you automatically lose the discussion?

An apologists will say and do anything, including outright lying, to defend their agenda. They have no real morals.

Jat

The same as not all Israelis are as blood thirsty as their leader Sharon is either.

sphinx wui

Sauron, I am speechless in front of your knowledge.

Jat, be careful, I can see a poll about the holocaust coming.


Omar

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Jat
Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

But their definition of "Palestine" includes all of Israel.

Israel hadn't exist for nearly 3000 years beforehand.

So you do wish to see Israel destroyed.

Ah, you show your true colors. You want the holocaust repeated.

If there is another Holocaust it wouldn't be by anything which I may have said. It sounds like here you are comparing me to a Nazi? Doesn't this mean that by doing this that you automatically lose the discussion?

I'm saying that the result of what you want would be another holocaust. The jews that didn't manage to get out would be dead.
I'm not comparing you to the Nazi's. I'm comparing the results.

Dr Rick

Could we all please just drop the holocaust references here; it shouldn't really be an issue on this thread, and it is one of those "hot buttons" that's almost guaranteed to fan a flame war...

Thanks

Rick, moderator

Optional

Because I don't believe you are correct when you say that Israel had a mandate to exist. It did not. However, I never claimed that Israel was an illegal state. I claimed that depending on how you read the documentation and intent, you can make an argument for the legality OR illegality of the founding of Israel, but you cannot say Israel had a specific mandate to exist.

I made my clarification because I don't wantg anyone to think that I am, by extension, saying 'and therefore Israel should be disbanded immediately'... My argument does not stretch that far, irt encompasses only the historical accuracy of your claim for a specific 'mandate' for Israel to exist.

Now, the key to our disagreement seems to lie in permissable usages of the word 'mandate'. You seem to be using it to mean 'authorization' or 'permission'. I have never heard the word used just so before... A mandate always involves a command or instruction, and the thing mandated is the result of carrying out that command or instruction.

I would not say the US and Canada have a 'mandate' to exist; they just exist. It seems to me that if you're using the word solely to imply 'permission' or 'authorization'... Who has the authority to bestow or rescind permission for the US or Canada to exist? Nobody... So 'mandate' used in that sense seems to be a nonsense word.

Still and all, the important thing here is that you mentioned a 'specific' mandate, which means that something above and beyond mere UN membership and recognition gives Israel the right to exist. If that is the case... Which of those specific actions would not ALSO give Palestine a right to exist?

Now, treating the last part of your post seperately, because it seems to be saying just the opposite of how you're using the word 'mandate' elsewhere...

The Balfour Declaration was NOT an authoritative command or instruction to create the Jewish State of Israel. It was a general policy memo expressing support for the idea of a Jewish homeland IN Palestine. Specifically NOT a Jewish state, but rather a state in which Jews and Muslims would live side-by-side.

The League of Nations Mandate was NOT an authoritative command or instruction for the creation of the Jewish State of Israel, nor was it a League of Nations authorization for the creation of the Jewish State of Israel. It was a mandate to the british to attempt to create a jewish homeland in Palestine. The 'to the british' part is important there; the fact that the british never managed to create a Jewish homeland in a new State of Palestine was a failure of their mandate.

The United Nations Partition Resolution WAS an authoritative command or instruction to the UN diplomats to find a way to create a seperate Jewish State and Palestinian State. They never managed to do so, which was a failor of the mandate OF THE UN DIPLOMATS.

Israel's admission to the UN was simply not a command or instruction, in any sense of those two words. Nor was the recognition of other countries.

UNSC 242.... As I said before, I am unfamiliar with that, so I cannot judge.

-me

Jat

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

So you do wish to see Israel destroyed.

It should be disbanded. It is based all on a lie.

I'm saying that the result of what you want would be another holocaust.

They thought that same thing when Apartheid was disbanded in South Africa. There was none.

The jews that didn't manage to get out would be dead.

You are speculating

I'm not comparing you to the Nazi's. I'm comparing the results.

Same difference.

Jat

I'm not the one who tried to bring it up here in order to justify my actions.

Gurdur

Amen-Moses

This is one of the reasons I love the PD forum, Israel was built with US money, the US vetoed every UN attempt to intervene in the region and the US bullied Britain into getting out of the region before the issues were settled (and whilst it was damn obvious the result would be war in the region) and who get's the blame?

Europe!

Sheesh. :banghead:

Amen-Moses