About

This is an example of a page. Unlike posts, which are displayed on your blog’s front page in the order they’re published, pages are better suited for more timeless content that you want to be easily accessible, like your About or Contact information. Click the Edit link to make changes to this page or add another page.

Advertisements

172 responses to “About

  1. “I see that you are fully paid up member of the putrid Palestinianista Brigade.”
    Nah … I’m just a guy who knows injustice when he sees it … and also knows which side Christ would be on (hint: the poor and oppressed)

    EXCELLENT!
    rb

  2. “The word Palestinianista was coined by me today.”

    Let me pop that word into google and we’ll see if you just ‘coined’ it

    19 de novembro de 2012 às 14:17

    “A extrema-esquerda palestinianista já está num frenesim.”

    1 Jan 2013

    “Notícia é a velha história da palestinianista Rachel Corrie que se foi meter no meio de uma operação anti-terrorismo e morreu.”

    26 Jul 2010

    “Outra coisa não seria de esperar, pois o sector turístico é dominado por delegações da extrema-esquerda palestinianista europeia, ”

    3 Feb 2005

    “(Later I learned that outside, a Palestinianista was asked what army is more moral than Israel’s. He cited armies that don’t fight wars”

    I’m actually getting quite concerned at how easily the lies roll off your tongue, Chris.

    • oneof5

      “I’m actually getting quite concerned at how easily the lies roll off your tongue,”

      Psychopaths have little – if any – sense of shame …

      Thinking about it, psychopathy would tend to explain a number of things …

  3. “What treaty replaced the San Remo Treaty and when did the latter international agreement become inoperative?”

    I’ve answered that repeatedly but for some reason you keep ignoring ‘Israel’s declaration of Independence’….Why?

    Also can you clear this up,

    “Israel actually has a better claim to its existence, having been created by the U.N. rather than by the whims and national interests of the Allied victors.”

    You posted the above quote under the name of ‘Buster.J.Bailey’

    You claim you are not right wing. Let’s look at some evidence. You post huge amounts of copy/paste material from sites such as FPM, ActforAmerica, gatestone, Hudson, BarenakedIslam etc…All of whom are right wing, BarenakedIslam is actually extreme right wing.

    Now let’s look at how you voted,

    “I am a floating voter and voted Tory for the first time in many years on the strength of David Cameron saying he was a Zionist. I feel badly let down. I should have stuck with UKIP. ”

    http://www.christiansforzion.com/news/2012/3/30/ukip-support-for-israel.html

    Conservatives are the right wing of British mainstream politics. They also have a fetish for hammering the poorest in UK society, killing your claim that you support the poor. But more alarmingly you say,

    “..I should have stuck with UKIP”

    UKIP are farther to the right than the conservatives, they are also choc full of ‘Anti Semites’ and there’s even allegations that their leader happily sang ‘Hitler Youth’ ditties in his uni days…But it’s “ok to vote for them because they hate Muslims more than Jews”?

    So you vote to the right and you copy/paste from the right, but you say you are not a right winger…Do you honestly think we are stupid enough to believe you?

    Maybe you were middle of the road years back but ever since Mike Fryer’s insidious cult converted and brainwashed you, you have become right wing extremist even agreeing to perversions of the bible such as,

    “Christianity which has as its corner stone a Jew who will Judge anyone who throughout history fails to support Israel.”

    You have failed to answer my question, so here it is again and this time i’ll point out that huge amounts of money are being diverted into the settlements, money, which could be used to help the poorest in Israeli society. Here’s a link to help you understand a little more,

    http://jfjfp.com/?p=29689

    Now here’s my Q.

    You also claim you ‘feel for the average Palestinian’ [basic hasbara as can be found in the hasbara handbook] and that Israel should govern the West Bank and you say that this governance by Israel creates jobs for Arabs. Oddly though you ignore what the World bank says when it claimed that,

    “More than half the land in the West Bank, much of it agricultural and resource rich, is inaccessible to Palestinians. The first comprehensive study of the potential impact of this ‘restricted land,’ released by the World Bank today, sets the current loss to the Palestinian economy at about US$3.4 billion.”

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/10/07/palestinians-access-area-c-economic-recovery-sustainable-growth

    $3.4 billion for the Palestinian economy would also cut the need for foreign aid and would possibly generate taxes to Abbas and Fatah making Abbas directly answerable to the people paying taxes. I mention that because i know that the CfZ crowd are constantly moaning about the amount of aid that goes to Abbas and his cronies.

    So to sum up. If you really care about the average Palestinian you’d be all for Israel getting the hell out of the West Bank…And as an added bonus less UK tax payers money will go to Abbas and his cronies and inside Israel more of the money that keeps the settlements going can be diverted into education and helping the poor etc.

    So, do you support this or not, Chris.?

  4. Christopher Proudlove

    You have obviously not heard that UKIP is doing well in traditional Labour areas.
    I want Britain to be a sovereign nation not part of a federated Europe. Their are many traditional Labour voters who hold to this view. Remember Peter Shore?
    The European Union is going beyond the free trade area. I don’t want our country to be part of a political union. We should speak for ourselves.
    The plight of Palestinian Arabs can be laid at the feet of their leaders who have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution. Israeli Arabs are better off than their counterparts in neighbouring countries.
    If Palestinian Arabs are granted statehood under the present set-up the first thing that will happen is a civil war between the Fatah and Hamas factions. Further, Palestinian Arabs do not meet the requirements of the United Nations Charter.
    The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. The Jewish state says it is prepared to give some of this land away to Palestinian Arabs as part of a comprehensive settlement.
    You lie when you say that you have answered these simple questions: “What treaty replaced the San Remo Treaty and when did the latter international agreement become inoperative?”

    • oneof5

      “You have obviously not heard that UKIP is doing well in traditional Labour areas.”
      Logical fallacy … where the UKIP does well is neither here nor there … if it doesn’t reflect an actual change in the UKIP’s political ideology.

      “If Palestinian Arabs are granted statehood under the present set-up the first thing that will happen is a civil war between the Fatah and Hamas factions.”
      That’s not a foregone conclusion … and it’s definitely not a legitimate reason to withhold the right of a people to self-determination.

      “Further, Palestinian Arabs do not meet the requirements of the United Nations Charter.”
      Would you care to elaborate on that … rather than simply assert it with no accompanying explanation as though you have been a lifelong employee of the (because) Wesayso Corporation ?

      “The Jewish state says it is prepared to give some of this land away to Palestinian Arabs as part of a comprehensive settlement.”
      LOL … I linked to an article in Haaretz yesterday that the Israeli Knesset had just voted to nix a two-state solution …

      Are you a complete functional illiterate ?

      Are you using a special definition of the word “prepared” that is different from what the rest of us who speak the King’s English are using ?

      Finally, what did you illustrious journalistic career consist of … 46 years of delivering a newspaper route ?

      Geezus … what a clown …

  5. Christopher Proudlove

    How odious of you to claim you have a better knowledge of my political views than I do. I voted for membership of Europe in 1973 and I’m glad that the bad old days of warring with each other have gone. I’m for European standardisation of weight and measures etcetera but not for a common foreign policy or legal system. Judges in Brussels should not be able to overrule our
    judges, nor do I want us to be America’s poodle in the EC, we’ve had quite enough of that, thank you.

  6. Yea, you voted Conservative “… on the strength of David Cameron saying he was a Zionist.”

    From the blog where i quoted your comment,

    ” I have just learned that UKIP also have an Israel supporting group called friends of Israel in UKIP. That is not surprising to me however as the UKIP candidate for my own local council elections four years ago sent me an e-mail showing support for Israel.”

    From the rest of your comment,

    ” I feel badly let down. I should have stuck with UKIP. We must all try to get our MPs and the media to see what is really happening regarding Israel and the Arabs.”

    Can you point me to where Europe comes into it?

    “The plight of Palestinian Arabs can be laid at the feet of their leaders who have repeatedly rejected a two-state solution. Israeli Arabs are better off than their counterparts in neighbouring countries.
    If Palestinian Arabs are granted statehood under the present set-up the first thing that will happen is a civil war between the Fatah and Hamas factions. Further, Palestinian Arabs do not meet the requirements of the United Nations Charter.”

    You totally dodged the question…Again.

    “The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. ”

    Where in the San Remo treaty does it say this…Can you quote it for me?

    • Christopher Proudlove

      UNTIL the Ottoman Empire ( Turkey ) was defeated in World War One it ruled over Palestine which was composed of administrative districts of southern Syria . It was never a nation, just geographical territory.

      The victorious powers of the United Kingdom and France were given responsibility by the League of Nations, a precursor of the United Nations, to create one Jewish state and a number of Muslim nations in the Middle East that were previously part of the Turkish empire.

      France was given the mandate over Syria and Lebanon and the UK the mandate for Palestine and Mesopotamia ( Iraq ) until such time that the intended nations had sufficient infrastructure to rule in their own right.

      Originally, all Palestine was intended for a future Jewish state, but the League of Nations agreed with British Commonwealth Secretary Winston Churchill to split the territory in two. Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) was given 78 per cent of Palestine with the rest earmarked for the future Jewish state. This new Arab kingdom banned Jews!

      Churchill then ceded the Golan Heights to the French. The future Israel was also robbed of another part of its ancient homeland to the east of the River Jordan.

      The League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine ,” gave Jews the legal right to settle anywhere in a 10,000-square-miles area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including Judea and Samaria ( West Bank ) and the Gaza Strip.

      The legally binding document was at the 1920 San Remo Conference and became operational on September 29, 1923.

      On April 18, 1946, the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations. The UN was later handed over the mandate for Palestine by the British. As the League’s Jewish national home provision was the will of the international community, the UN brought this into being and Israel became a recognised nation in

      Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine ” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine ” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine . The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine .”

      The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations . Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine ” of the League of Nations

      In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

      Then there’s San Remo .

      “Under its terms Israel has the right to settle Jews on vacant land between the River Jordan and Mediterranean Sea including Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. In other words, Jones’s claims of occupation and illegal settlements do not stand up”.

      Firstly, San Remo never intended Israel to have all the land you mention. San Remo intended Israel to have a state somewhere on the land but not everywhere. There could never have been a viable Jewish/Israeli state if what you claim is true. At best it would have been totally fragmented.

      Secondly, it was up to the mandate power to allocate what borders the Jewish/Israeli state should exist in. But the mandate power handed over that obligation to the UN and it was the UN who decided what those borders should be. The partition plan was then voted on by all UN member states [unlike San Remo which was a small minority of nations imposing their will on the majority] and the 2/3rds majority which was needed won. The vote itself was postponed several times because the 2/3rds majority couldn’t be reached and when it eventually did take place it did so under threats, intimidation and bribery.

      Ever wondered why the Israeli leadership doesn’t bring up San Remo instead of building settlements? There’s a good reason why they don’t, so yah, take the San Remo theory to court and watch as Israel s forced into a humble climb down and withdrawal from the occupied territories.
      “This is more bluster from Trevor. He does not quote examples of Israel ’s dishonesty so we can disregard this view as more of his pro-Palestinian Arab propaganda”.

      Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria.

      Howard Grief

      The situation in which the Arabs of Palestine and the Land of Israel claim the same legal rights as the Jewish people violates the authentic international law that was created by the San Remo Resolution, the Mandate and the 1920 Franco-British Convention. It is part of the worldwide folly that has occurred since 1969 when the “Palestinian people” were first accorded international recognition, that authentic international law has been replaced by an ersatz international law composed of illegal UN Resolutions. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907 are acts of genuine international law, but they have no direct application or relevance to the legal status of Judea, Samaria and Gaza which are integral territories of the Jewish National Home and the Land of Israel under the sovereignty of the State of Israel. These acts would apply only to the Arab occupation of Jewish territories, as occurred between 1948 and 1967, and not to the case of Israeli rule over the Jewish homeland. The hoax of the Palestinian people and their alleged rights to the Land of Israel as well as the farce that results from citing pseudo-international law to support their fabricated case must be exposed and brought to an end.

      The Origin and Nature of the “Mandate for Palestine ”

      The “Mandate for Palestine ,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine , a 10,000-square-miles3 area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea .

      The legally binding document was conferred on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized and unanimously approved on July 24, 1922, by the Council of the League of Nations , which was comprised at that time of 51 countries,4 and became operational on September 29, 1923.5

      The “Mandate for Palestine ” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community in blissful unawareness of Arab opposition to the very notion of Jewish historical rights in Palestine . The Mandate weathered the test of time: On April 18, 1946, when the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations, the international community, in essence, reaffirmed the validity of this international accord and reconfirmed that the terms for a Jewish National Home were the will of the international community, a “sacred trust” – despite the fact that by then it was patently clear that the Arabs opposed a Jewish National Home, no matter what the form.

      Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine ” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine ” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine . The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine .”

      The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations . Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine ” of the League of Nations

      In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.

      • Christopher Proudlove

        Disregard the above which was posted in error. This is the version I meant to use.
        There were other reasons why I voted Conservative. Labour left this country in a financial mess from which we are still suffering. The much vaunted Chancellor, Gordon Brown, sold much of our gold reserves when the price was at its lowest. Thereafter the price of gold soared to record levels on world markets.
        Europe comes into the equation because it is trying to bully Israel into doing things it does not want to with regard to the Holy Land.
        Until the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) was defeated in World War One it ruled over Palestine which was composed of administrative districts of southern Syria. It was never a nation, just geographical territory.
        The victorious powers of the United Kingdom and France were given responsibility by the League of Nations, a precursor of the United Nations, to create one Jewish state and a number of Muslim nations in the Middle East that were previously part of the Turkish empire.
        France was given the mandate over Syria and Lebanon and the UK the mandate for Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq) until such time that the intended nations had sufficient infrastructure to rule in their own right.
        Originally, all Palestine was intended for a future Jewish state, but the League of Nations agreed with British Commonwealth Secretary Winston Churchill to split the territory in two. Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) was given nearly 78 per cent of Palestine with the rest earmarked for the future Jewish state. This new Arab kingdom banned Jews!
        Churchill then illegally ceded the Golan Heights to the French without League of Nations permission. The future Israel was also robbed of another part of its ancient homeland to the east of the River Jordan.
        The League of Nations “Mandate for Palestine,” gave Jews the legal right to settle anywhere in a 10,000-square-miles area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including Judea and Samaria ( West Bank ) and the Gaza Strip.
        The legally binding document was at the 1920 San Remo Conference and became operational on September 29, 1923.
        On April 18, 1946, the League of Nations was dissolved and its assets and duties transferred to the United Nations. The UN was later handed over the mandate for Palestine by the British. As the League’s Jewish national home provision was the will of the international community, the UN brought this into being and Israel became a recognised nation in 1948.
        Many seem to confuse the “Mandate for Palestine” [The Trust], with the British Mandate [The Trustee]. The “Mandate for Palestine” is a League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal rights in Palestine . The British Mandate, on the other hand, was entrusted by the League of Nations with the responsibility to administrate the area delineated by the “Mandate for Palestine .”
        The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations . Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognises the “Mandate for Palestine ” of the League of Nations.
        In other words, neither international courts nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.
        Articles by Howard Grief and other sources from the internet have been used here.

      • talknic

        @ Christopher Proudlove The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine destroys your stupid Hasbara twaddle completely. As for Howard Grief one only has to read Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine to see he’s talking nonsense.

        A) It’s called the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp and; it says nothing about a Jewish state nor does it imply a Jewish state (reiterated in the white papers http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp )

        B) The first sentence of the Mandate tells us, via Article 22 of the LoN Covenant, Palestine was a state afforded provisional recognition.

        C) Article 7 Tells us it was to be a Palestinian state

        Article 7 The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

        And it did indeed enact a nationality law in 1925, issuing passports that said “Palestinian citizen under article seven of the Palestinian citizenship order 1925” http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Sp21-005.jpg

        “The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations . Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine ” of the League of Nations”

        Interesting … under Article 7 of the Mandate Israel shouldn’t exist 🙂 The Israeli Government website tells us you’re spouting nonsense the Mandate terminated May 14th 1948

        “Accordingly we, members of the People’s Council, representatives of the Jewish Community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist Movement, are here assembled on the day of the termination of the British Mandate http://pages.citebite.com/d2w2m2n6a3mad

        Furthermore, the Israeli government plea for recognition tells us not only did Israel proclaim itself as “as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, the Declaration didn’t come into effect until 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time). http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf One minute after the Mandate had terminated.

        “In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.”

        The Mandate terminated so independence could be declared. Israel was declared and recognized as it asked to be recognized. No further territories have ever been legally acquired or legally annexed or recognized as Israeli.

  7. please prove this chris :
    “The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. ”
    prove it with relevant links like:
    (YALE, PRINCETON, BRITANICA, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Library of Congress etc.)

    • oneof5

      “please prove this chris :
      “The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. ”
      prove it with relevant links like:
      (YALE, PRINCETON, BRITANICA, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Library of Congress etc.)”

      It’s all right here:

      http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Peace_Treaty_of_Sèvres

      Now let’s see if this dunderhead can make his case … my guess is he will:

      1. duck, shuck, and jive his way into something else … or,

      2. mindlessly repeat the same line as though it isn’t a complete non-sequitur … or,

      3. just disappear …

      With no. 3 being the least likely of course, because after all … He got the feevah for Jeebus !

  8. oneof5

    “Where in the San Remo treaty does it say this…Can you quote it for me?”

    Of course he can’t … because it doesn’t say any such thing … the words “Judea” and “Samaria” appear nowhere in the relevant document … which is why he will refuse to quote the actual text of The Treaty of Sevres.

    He will studiously avoid dealing with the actual text, instead paraphrasing in a manner that perverts the meaning of actual text … which makes one wonder if the perversion of text is the only form of debauchery that he’s into …

    He will endlessly whine like some petulant little child that: It’s really, really, really what I want it to mean … so why can’t I ? … huh ? … huh ? … please Mommy ?

    What a sicko …

    This moronic, mouth-breathing putz is either a:

    1. ignorant hasbarat troll who is being feed what to post and has no personal knowledge and understanding of that of which he speaks himself …

    or

    2. a fanatical dissembling follower of Jeebus and fetishist of the Zionist State, who misinterprets and perverts the Bible during every waking moment …

    or

    3. a completely mentally deranged loon – with a severe case of Jerusalem Syndrome – to the point of needing institutionalization …

    The more I see, the more I’m inclined to think it’s either no. 2 or no. 3 … but it could very well be a hybrid of the two.

    He’s a prime example of some of the total sleazeballs that exist in the media and I bet if one knew his actual history in that profession it would be very interesting indeed …

    • Christopher Proudlove

      Posts like this do not help your cause! I think it’s called cyber bullying.

      • oneof5

        “Posts like this do not help your cause! I think it’s called cyber bullying.”
        I have an extremely low tolerance for stupidity … and an even lower tolerance for liars …

        You have now proved beyond a shadow of a doubt – by doing exactly what I predicted you would do – that you are both.

        You avoid quoting the actual text of the Treaty of Sevres – and instead offered up some pile of crap word salad of your own or someone else’s making …

        It is, in essence, a resort to argument by authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) … indeed, it is not only that, but more specifically, it is also a resort to an appeal to false or inappropriate authority

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

        IOW, your argument is this: because “X” says “Y” it therefore means “Z”

        The problem you have is that who/what you have selected for “X” isn’t the controlling authority on the matter. To wit:

        Here’s the bottomline Nimrod: The ultimate authority on the Treaty of Sevres is actual text of the treaty itself

        Pretty simple isn’t it ?

        Even a complete chowderhead like yourself ought to be able to grasp that.

        Judea and Samaria … it ain’t in there …

        Jewish state … it ain’t in there …

        Which is why you keep avoiding the actual text

        You will never deal with the actual text … because it itself, refutes what you are asserting.

        Now … what do you want to do for the second act of the “Chris Proudlove Ziobot Freakshow and Circus” ?

  9. sorry to bother oneof5
    “LOL … I linked to an article in Haaretz yesterday that the Israeli Knesset had just voted to nix a two-state solution …”

    i must have missed it.
    could you please post it once more.
    thank you
    ruedi

  10. oneof5

    “sorry to bother oneof5
    i must have missed it.
    could you please post it once more.
    thank you”

    ruedi,

    My error (relying on my memory when I replied) – it was actually an article from Mondoweiss, which references and links an article in the Jerusalem Post:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2014/01/knesset-votes-solution.html

  11. no problem.
    thank you anyway.

    i just read this:
    chris will love it!
    http://www.juancole.com/2014/01/recognizing-israel-saying.html
    Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is like saying the US is a White State

    buona notte
    ruedi

    PS: peres and lapid oppose this demand.
    let’s hope that the PA will handle this professionally!

  12. “You totally dodged the question…Again.

    “The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. ”

    Where in the San Remo treaty does it say this…Can you quote it for me?

    Also, i’ve already been over most of the lies you just told.

  13. chris
    please provide relevant links and para.
    “The San Remo Treaty says Judea and Samaria are part of Israel. ”
    prove it with relevant links like:
    (YALE, PRINCETON, BRITANICA, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Library of Congress etc.)”

    please do not post howard grief or dr. gaulthier!

    if you don’t deliver – your debunked period!

  14. Christopher Proudlove

    Israel lives again, just as the many Bible texts predicted. The Bible is my main reference point. What God decrees will happen.
    I can’t today find the reference posted by the administrator about the word Palestinianista. I thought I was the first to use this word, but apparently not. He infers that I copied the word from a Spanish language website. I do not speak Spanish and I don’t know if it is an appropriate word to use to convey the meaning of someone so obsessed with the Palestinian Arab cause they cannot see the movement’s anti-Semitic faults.
    Of course, this hatefest website will once more accuse me of lying. But it is possible for different people to have the same idea. This is clearly seen in the press reviews of UK National newspapers on the BBC and Sky. It is not unusual to see the same splash headline in different newspapers. Did one copy the other? No, the headline writers just had the same idea.
    I am disgusted by the tone of recent comments and so I will get on with other projects in my life for the time being.

    • oneof5

      “Israel lives again, just as the many Bible texts predicted. The Bible is my main reference point. What God decrees will happen.”
      That would help to explain your insistence on certain things which are clearly contrary to documented historical facts.

      Fanatical religious zealots operate off of faith and belief – two things which facts can be an impediment to …

      And given the choice between one or the other, a fanatic will ignore fact … and go with his faith and belief … even if that belief is errant …

      Such is the nature of fanaticism …

      “and I don’t know if it is an appropriate word to use to convey the meaning of someone so obsessed with the Palestinian Arab cause they cannot see the movement’s anti-Semitic faults.”
      Ahhh … that right there is a big part of your problem … you see it as “Palestinian Arab” cause …

      I see it as a human rights and justice cause … and I could really give a flying **** what the specific nationalities or the religions are that are involved …

      To quote Rabbi Hillel, the great Jewish sage:

      If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
      If I am not for others, what am I?
      And if not now, when?

      “I am disgusted by the tone of recent comments and so I will get on with other projects in my life for the time being.”
      The tone of recent comments was rather unfortunate … but you have to understand: you brought that upon yourself – by refusing to act in good faith … most specifically by refusing to acknowledge the actual text of the relevant documents … and instead choosing to use paraphrases which impart a false and contradictory meaning to the original sources …

      I’m quite sure that you will not consider your own culpability in this matter … because, after all, as a “holy warrior”, you have Jeebus as your co-pilot and you are certain that your cause is just … even if it takes a little misrepresentation and prevarication on your part to move things along

      I’d be quite happy to engage with you in a collegial and respectful manner and have a civil discussion … if you wouldn’t ignore questions when posed, and are willing to respond in an honest, substantive manner.

      At the point where your conduct shows that you have no interest whatsoever in doing so, you earn my utter scorn and contempt however.

    • talknic

      @ Christopher Proudlove “Israel lives again, just as the many Bible texts predicted”

      Wonderful, now if only it would exist within its proclaimed, legally defined and recognized sovereign extent and get its idiotic, illegal facts on the ground, land thieving, self out of all non-Israeli territories for once and forever.

      “The Bible is my main reference point.”

      It’s out of date by a few thousand years…

      ” What God decrees will happen”

      Uh huh. The holocaust happened, where was God? Jerking off?

      “I can’t today find the reference posted by the administrator about the word Palestinianista. I thought I was the first to use this word”

      Irrelevant to the topic

      ” I do not speak Spanish and I don’t know if it is an appropriate word to use to convey the meaning of someone so obsessed with the Palestinian Arab cause they cannot see the movement’s anti-Semitic faults”

      A) Anti-semitic means to be against a Semitic Language. The word “antisemitism” was coined by William Marr, it’s “antisemitism” “antisemitic” “antisemite”. It is specific to the hatred of Jews.

      Israel’s illegal policies are not Jews. Crimes under the UN Charter and International Law are not Jews. Israeli propaganda is not Jews. Your unsubstantiated claims are not Jews and;
      people who purposefully lie, falsely accuse, covet and willfully acquire other people’s property illegally, are not living in accordance with the most basic of Judaism’s tenets. That you willfully lie, falsely accuse, covet other folks property and flaunt your ignorance in support of the Jewish state shows just how corrosive Zionism is to everything and everyone it touches.

      B) The Palestinians ask for their rights according to the UN Charter and International Laws the State of Israel obliged itself to uphold.

      Hundreds of UNSC resolutions giving Israel hundreds of opportunities to adhere to the binding laws those resolutions reaffirm and emphasize, all of which Israel has ignored, tell us Israel has failed to uphold its obligations.

      If that’s antisemitism, go screech at the Zionist Federation, the Jewish Agency, successive Israeli Governments and those who have supported 67 years of illegal facts on the ground, endangering Israeli citizens by encouraging them to illegally settle in non-Israeli territory held under occupation in contradiction of GC IV

      Ask yourself, what kind of an evil government encourages its citizens to break a convention adopted to protect ALL citizens including those of the occupying power from the highly likely violent consequences of occupying another people and their territory?

      .“Of course, this hatefest website will once more accuse me of lying”

      Your inability to actually substantiate any of your claims and to ignore facts SHOWS everyone you’re a liar. Go yell at yourself in a mirror

      “I am disgusted by the tone of recent comments and so I will get on with other projects in my life for the time…”

      Bye

  15. oneof5

    “Disregard the above which was posted in error. This is the version I meant to use.”
    It’s all been posted in error – even that to which I am now replying – you just haven’t realized it yet.

    “The victorious powers of the United Kingdom and France were given responsibility by the League of Nations, a precursor of the United Nations, to create one Jewish state and a number of Muslim nations in the Middle East that were previously part of the Turkish empire.”
    Can you cite and provide a link to a relevant document where this occurred, and quote the precise language that conferred the power to “create one Jewish state” ?

    “Originally, all Palestine was intended for a future Jewish state, but the League of Nations agreed with British Commonwealth Secretary Winston Churchill to split the territory in two.”
    Intended by who ?

    Please cite the primary source document by providing a link and then quote the exact words that expressed this intention.

    “Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) was given nearly 78 per cent of Palestine with the rest earmarked for the future Jewish state.”
    Same deal: cite and link and quote the exact words …

    “The future Israel was also robbed of another part of its ancient homeland to the east of the River Jordan.”
    The statement is internally, logically inconsistent: Robbery implies ownership and something which does yet exist cannot “own” anything … the fact of non-existence precludes it.

    You might wish to take elementary course in logic … with special attention paid to avoiding logical fallacies … probably would serve you far better than any education you may have received thus far in the art of journalism …

    “The legally binding document was at the 1920 San Remo Conference and became operational on September 29, 1923.”
    More totally ignorant stupidity … as a matter of law resolutions adopted at a conference are not legally binding … treaties however may be …. eventually. That’s why the resolutions made at the San Remo conference were ultimately incorporated into the Treaty of Sevres.

    In the United States, treaties once signed by the Executive and ratified by the Senate, become, along with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land and are are legally binding. Up until that point … nada …

    A statement as quoted above shows your fundamental ignorance of legal matters on which you are attempting to speak. (You probably ought to take a look at what “plain meaning” is as far as a judicial construct goes … but I warn ya: it’s gonna be problematic for your position)

    “As the League’s Jewish national home provision was the will of the international community, the UN brought this into being and Israel became a recognised nation in 1948.”
    Another sign of an illogical, deranged mind are altered sequences and incorrect source of causation.

    1. Incorrect source of causation: the UN didn’t bring anything into being – Israel declared it’s own independence – which was accorded diplomatic recognition various independent sovereign nations.

    Further the UN initially rejected Israel’s application for recognition and membership, and it ultimately did not grant that request until 11 May 1949.

    2. Altered sequence: Israel’s declaration of independence preceded the UN’s acknowledgement of same.

    Additionally, you made an absolutely fatal mistake above – you referred/quoted to the actual words contained in the actual text of the Balfour Declaration, Treaty of Sevres, and the LoN Mandate:

    … national home …

    Perhaps the first Attorney General of Palestine – the moderate jewish Zionist Norman Bentwich – can help clear this matter up for you:

    “A national home, as distinguished from a state, is a country where a people are acknowledged as having a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing their cultural, social and intellectual ideals without receiving political rights.”
    (Norman Bentwich, Palestine, 1934, p. 101 cit. in Cattan: Palestine and International Law, 1973, p. 15)
    http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&id=6uQsAAAAMAAJ&q=following+terms#search_anchor

    Further:

    “Again, the Jewish national home was defined by a Jewish jurist, Mr. Norman Bentwich, in a book published by him in 1924 called The Mandate System. On page 24, he wrote as follows: “It signifies a territory in which a people, without receiving rights of political sovereignty, has nevertheless a recognized legal position and the opportunity of developing its moral, social, and intellectual ideas.”
    http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1343338D30D39DCF85256E5C00578E01

    Now, stop being such a naughty little boy and go be a good little boy and get out a decent dictionary and look up and fully define the following two words until you understand them and have it cleared up in your mind:

    1. home

    2. state

    These two words are not equivalent or interchangable – as they do not mean exactly the same thing.

    “The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations . Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognises the “Mandate for Palestine ” of the League of Nations. In other words, neither international courts nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended.”
    Articles by Howard Grief and other sources from the internet have been used here.”
    LOL … so you’re just doing the copy/pasta thing … got it !

    And you’re relying on a guy who the Israeli Supreme Court totally blew off and told to go take a hike …

    Excellent move Ace !

    “Grief laid out his thesis in his 2008 book, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. John Quigley, in his book The Statehood of Palestine, comes to the conclusion that Grief’s position which excludes “the Arab inhabitants of the country at the time” from sovereignty on the basis of the Balfour Declaration is difficult to maintain given that the declaration “specifically references the rights of the population of Palestine in its entirety“.

    Heheheh … yeah … e-n-t-i-r-e-t-y … it’s always those damn words that are causing so much problems …

    I suspect that next you’ll whip Grief’s awesome prowess abilities as a notary as the finishing touch to the argument …

    Dude, I have to hand it to ya and give ya an “A” for effort … and a complete willingness to come on here and be mocked and ridiculed for having not a clue … but at some point you’re going to have to quit ignoring the substantive issues (the actual text) and actually address them.

    Or I guess you could just continue on in blissful delusion … good luck getting the International Court of Justice to agree tho’ …

    Either way, the false god Jeebus will be totally cool with it.

  16. oneof5

    Whoops … looks like I missed an end tag above … cfzw can you clean that up ?

    Otherwise I think it will continue to cascade on down …

  17. oneof5

    Nope … looks like we’re good.

  18. I fixed it anyway.

    Some great posts. Thank’s to yourself,oneof5, to Ruedi, and to Talknic.

  19. oneof5

    “I fixed it anyway.”
    Thanks.

    For clarity’s sake the following could have been worded better:

    “Another sign of an illogical, deranged mind are altered sequences and incorrect source of causation.”

    Perhaps:

    Another sign of an illogical, deranged mind are altering sequences and inability to identify the correct source of causation.

    “Some great posts. Thank’s to yourself,oneof5, to Ruedi, and to Talknic.”
    Thank you – both for this site and your efforts to combat the lies and see justice done …

    Definitely thanks to Ruedi for that link to that great piece by Juan Cole (the site where I originally found what I’m-a-dinner-jacket actually did and didn’t say)

    And most assuredly to talknic … without whose site I’d be reduced to gazing at my navel …

  20. Adam Dayton

    Oneof5 – Kindly provide me with the authoritative source upon which Bentwich relied in making his assessment of what constitutes a “homeland.” At any rate, I suggest you take a look at what Balfour had to say about the matter:

    ““The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”

    Last time I checked – the core component of Zionism is Jewish STATEHOOD. Not some vague concept of a “homeland,” a concept for which you have provided no primary source.

    It’s clear from this quote that quite frankly, the powers, including the mandatory power, did not care about the Palestinians whatsoever.

    If one is committed to Zionism, then by definition one is committed to Jewish Statehood.

    You’re reference to the “rights of the Palestinians in their entirety is irrelevant” unless you wish to provide me with specific, sourced material, as to what those rights entailed.

    • oneof5

      Oh Lordy … do we have a new junior hasbarat ?

      “Kindly provide me with the authoritative source upon which Bentwich relied in making his assessment of what constitutes a “homeland.”
      Maybe he was taking the Zionist Organization (ZO) literally at it’s word, when in 1897 at its first congress, it “called for the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law”.

      Evidently, they didn’t call for a state … just a home … too bad, so sad …

      Or you can try this:

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB

      … paying particular attention to the various relevant Articles which pertain to the matter on which you seek clarification.

      Remember: under the basis of the rule of law, peoples secret desires and intentions don’t count for much …

      At any rate, I suggest you take a look at what Balfour had to say about the matter:

      ““The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”
      Yeah … so ?

      You think Balfour (and many others) wasn’t acting in a criminal, duplicitous manner ?

      If so, I suggest you take a look at the following:

      http://www.balfourproject.org/balfour-and-palestine/

      At best, you’re simply making the case that your object of desire was created in an immoral, duplicitous, and fraudulent manner … and is therefore illegitimate and really shouldn’t exist …

      Nice job Sport !

      “Last time I checked – the core component of Zionism is Jewish STATEHOOD. Not some vague concept of a “homeland,” a concept for which you have provided no primary source.”
      It’s in the LoN Mandate for Palestine Dimwit, which I linked above (and linked previously) …

      Geezus … just ignorant are you ?

      “It’s clear from this quote that quite frankly, the powers, including the mandatory power, did not care about the Palestinians whatsoever.”
      I would say that it’s clear that Balfour & Lord Rothschild (among others) certainly didn’t … but it would be fallacious to say that all the powers – including the Mandatory Power – did not care … because these powers were composed of various individuals, some of which did care (Lord Curzon & Edwin Montagu as two examples) and some of which didn’t …

      (You are imputing a human capacity to some thing which is in inherently not capable of exercising it, except on the basis of individuals …)

      Whether they “cared” about them or not, is largely irrelevant, in terms of the context of law and treaties and the like …

      “If one is committed to Zionism, then by definition one is committed to Jewish Statehood.”
      LOL … evidently, even the ZO (Zionist Organization) was somewhat confused about that – at least in terms of it’s public utterances – in 1897 …

      “You’re reference to the “rights of the Palestinians in their entirety is irrelevant” unless you wish to provide me with specific, sourced material, as to what those rights entailed.”
      LOL … first off, it wasn’t my reference … it was John Quigley’s …

      Suggest you review the Covenant of the League of Nations, which references certain rights, which were the basis for the later Universal Declaration of Human Rights by United Nations:

      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp

      Beyond that, the basic idea of human rights was ensconced in the First Geneva Convention in 1864 … so you can have a look at that as well. If you want to really dive in deep, then jump into Second Geneva, as well as the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Plenty more after those …

      I have to say Chippy, this doesn’t really appear to be an area about which you particularly well-informed or well-equipped to participate in discussion about … and it sure ain’t my job to provide you with a full, formal education in the area.

      Suggest that if you wanna participate in such a conversation you go do a little study and then come back and see us when you feel you’re up to the point that you can speak somewhere above the rather glib and superficial level of a hasbarat.

      Of course, I suspect that the agenda you’re operating on doesn’t really allow for that …

  21. Adam Dayton

    Oneof5, it’s clear you never read the Balfour declaration. You cite:

    ““Grief laid out his thesis in his 2008 book, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law. John Quigley, in his book The Statehood of Palestine, comes to the conclusion that Grief’s position which excludes “the Arab inhabitants of the country at the time” from sovereignty on the basis of the Balfour Declaration is difficult to maintain given that the declaration “specifically references the rights of the population of Palestine in its entirety“.

    Heheheh … yeah … e-n-t-i-r-e-t-y … it’s always those damn words that are causing so much problems …”

    Actually the word entirety does not appear anywhere in the Balfour declaration and definitely not with respect to Palestinian rights. Nor are the rights of Palestinians mentioned in their entirety.:

    ” I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

    His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

    I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”

    Do you see the word entirety anywhere in here? I sure don’t. Do you see the alleged rights of Palestinians covered in “their entirety?” I don’t. Civil and religious rights are mentioned. No mention of political rights.

    take this in consideration with the Balfour quote I gave you before, it is abundantly clear that homeland means nation-state.

    • oneof5

      “Oneof5, it’s clear you never read the Balfour declaration. You cite:”
      No … actually, it is clear that I have read it … and it’s also clear that I’m literate in my native tongue … at least to anyone else who is also literate in that tongue, which is English.

      “Actually the word entirety does not appear anywhere in the Balfour declaration and definitely not with respect to Palestinian rights. Nor are the rights of Palestinians mentioned in their entirety.”
      True … but both are irrelevant with respect to the matter which you are attempting to address …

      “Do you see the word entirety anywhere in here?”
      Nope …

      “I sure don’t.”
      This at least gives me hope …

      “Do you see the alleged rights of Palestinians covered in “their entirety?”
      And so quickly does that hope begin to fade and flicker …

      “I don’t. Civil and religious rights are mentioned. No mention of political rights.
      As as the final coup-de-grace, you administer the “head-shot” … that extinguishes the last dying ember of that hope …

      By your words above, you have revealed you are a functionally illiterate moron …

      The word “entirety” in Quigley’s quote refers not to rights, but to the Palestinians … the people of Palestine

      The reason we know this is because in Balfour the words “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” are used – and it is not otherwise qualified to indicate a subset of that population … so it’s the “entirety” … of the population …

      Furthermore, we can confirm what is being referred to by the manner of Quigley’s sentence construction, to wit:

      “specifically references the rights of the population of Palestine in its entirety“

      Notice the word “its” in the above sentence … which is the singular possessive …

      … “the population” in the quote is singular …

      Now, if Quigley’s quote had actually been referring to “rights” – which is plural – the construction would necessarily have to at least be:

      “specifically references the rights of the population of Palestine in their entirety“

      … “their” being the plural possessive … given that “rights” are plural …

      “take this in consideration with the Balfour quote I gave you before, it is abundantly clear that homeland means nation-state.”
      Dude,

      First off, the Treaty of Sevres – which is a legally binding document (something which Balfour’s statements are not) says what it says … (Done, game over)

      Secondly, you can’t even read – with full comprehension – what I assume is your own native tongue … and you’re gonna tell me what is “abundantly clear” ?

      I don’t think so …

      Nice try … congrats on the making the effort … but until you can opine in such a manner that indicates you aren’t some functionally illiterate putz, and can avoid relying on non-legally binding pronouncements from the mouths of politicians, I don’t think we can really have a conversation that will have much value …

      You savy ?

      Chin chin …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s