Why do Zionist apologists demand special debating privileges?

With a revival by Try_This of an older thread, I saw yet another case where facts were followed by an accusation of fraud without any support. Yet more proof for the OP that the Apologists can ignore historical verifiable data and rely on name-calling, and then claim "victory".

 

That reminds me of the Enron directors auditing themselves.
The IDF was also allowed to audit itself in Operation Cast Lead, which delivered .....?

You post that the finding was that it is "sui generis" - a 'unique' situation, and that therefore the Geneva Conventions prohibiting the invader from settling citizens from his own country in occupied territory, can be violated by Israel. LMAO ... pull the other one BIbi

That is the sort of result that you get from a self-audit - pure whitewash.

 

There we have the name-calling as mentioned in the OP.

Now let us check where Marlowe’s facts were refuted. Here is what Marlowe posted, conveniently snipped in HBendor’s quote, but nonetheless replied to by him!!!!:

In response to that HB totally ignores 1946. His response has nothing to do with Marlowe's offered evidence.

But let us accept that Strawman for the moment.

Most of that is true, but is just padding. What HBendor uses to make his point is highlighted in black. But, as you by now know, in 1961 Erskine Childers cautioned us always to check Zionists’ claims to facts. Let us follow his advice this time, since HBendor provides no supporting verifiable references. Go and Google the key part of HBendor’s evidence, the bit that reads "while preserving Arab character of area and administration to treat it as Arab province or adjunct of Palestine."
I got three links to that. The first (Mepe) was written by HBendor. The second (also Mepe) was written by HBendor. The third was written by …. guess who. None of them provide any references for the quote.

So HBendor is quoting himself!!! With that his entire line of defence craters, because excising Trans-Jordan WAS TOTALLY IN LINE WITH the league of nations covenant, its protocol, and the terms of the Mandate for Palestine [see http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp] in that Article 22 ( of the Covent allows for Mandate terms to be modified, and the very Article 25 which HBendor later quotes, namely:

‘Nuff said.

 

But let us check for more evidence of what was posted in the OP, namely “special debating privileges”. Let us check whether the rest of HBendor’s attempted rebuttal requires special priviledges to be valid.

I am not sure what he is getting at here. Perhaps he is referring to the Treaty of Lausanne. The Mandate for Palestine was approved on 24th July 1922. The excision of Trans-Jordan according to Article 25 of the Mandate was approved by the League of Nations on 16th September 1922. This was in partial compliance with the promise to the Arabs approved by Lord Grey, and as documented in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence of 1915.

This confirms that Article 25 was valid …. Whoop-dee-doo. His point was ….. ??

Time Out!! Instead of snipping the Article, let us establish EXACTLY what ‘25’ says:

We can now return to HBEendor.

Absolutely correct. That was the case prior to the League of Nations approval on 16th September 1922. The geographical limits of the Mandate for Palestine which applied to the Jews changed after that date, as will be proved below. The conclusion of the Memorandum, approved, further separates Trans-Jordan - see end of this post.

Well, let us test that (the Childers’ recommendation) by examining the British memorandum which was approved – source reference http://www.mandateforpalestine.org/05--appendix-b-article-25-realized.html The clauses listed in that reference were all excised from the Mandate for the area east of the Jordan river. This means that the following 2 recitals were excluded:

Excised, HBendor. Removed from applicability for the area east of the Jordan. Gone. No longer applicable. Look, I am not going to continue Article by Article, because it should be obvious that the British were not slack administrators, and that all the other articles excluded from relevance to Trans-Jordan WERE THOSE THAT GAVE RIGHTS TO JEWS IN TRANS-JORDAN. I tested them all, and the Jews remain with no rights in Trans-Jordan. Nada; zip; niets; aiziko; nigunos. The British memorandum of September 1922 surgically excised every single one of them.

The memorandum concluded with "In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory. His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan".

So what you thought was a clever trick, HBendor, namely that clauses still remain applicable to the Jews, disappear in relevance. Nice try at a clever spin, but Erskine Childers caught you out again.

MYTH BUSTED ::::: AGAIN!!!

Unless of course such sleight of hand debating is permitted to the Zionist Apologists.

[I will not be posting for a few days. Please therefore do not interpret any meaning to my lack of response]

 

This whole string theme is of course Bigoted.
One doesn't have to "apologize" for being a 'Zionist' or a supporter of them.
97% of Jews are "zionists", and a healthy percent of Not just Right-Wing Christians as well, as they support the right of Israel to Exist.

No matter the exact percentage, this Bigoted string seeks to demonize the vast majority of Jews and anyone else who supports Israel's existence, if not every policy.
Even those wishing to return to the 1967 borders are "Zionists".

A few others like Napier, Iolo, moon, are also, embarrassingly in this camp, and can't answer when confronted with their abuse/substitution of of "zionist" for "Jew"/(97% of Jews). IOW, the most recent incarnation of anti-semitism.
"zionist apologist" is just a more PC version of "Jew-lover", if still transparent.

 

No it is not. There are many factions at work here and so we do need to redefine our meanings.

Israel is akin to the beginnings of the USA, the new inhaitents of Israel have come from everywhere and nowhere as did Americans and most Americans where of one religion asn so on as are Israelis.

Zionsim came out of a background of instability caused by outside forces, it is understand able they should want their own HomeLand and that was what Zionism was, a movement to gain a homeland for Judaism....but most Jews who still live with in other societies cannot be said to be Zionists.

Oh I haven't got time now but we have to redefine our meanings for bigotry/ignorance not to take hold.

There is the KKK and there is Gnosis and Quakers and there is the same within all three Dogmas ..and then there is the secular ..........

 

This is a common antisemitic theme and is of course very ignorant and debunked by me here in 3 posts: Untouched.
422, 423, 424.
http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ill-not-exist-10-years-43.html#post1061814905
http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ill-not-exist-10-years-43.html#post1061814927
especially: http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ill-not-exist-10-years-43.html#post1061814964

wanna give it a shot rookie?
You vs PNAS.

and of course, even a quick trip to Basic Wikipedia would inform you 'Jews' ARE an ETHNO-religious group.

You also don't know what "semite" means, (that at least is Not 'ethnic'), I suggest a dictionary or other basic reference on that as well.

 

I'll bet you I was protesting against Israels treatment of Palistinians from before you were born Rookie ya self.............

Look, we don't know each other, we are probably in agreement about many things but as much as giving Scots Land in Ireland was 'wrong' we cannot now send them home all these years later ..As much as we know Israel was a dreadful mistake we can't just say .Nope it didn't work (*)(*)(*)(*) off ... as much as we wish it could it don't work like that.

Semites are Arabs btw and many peoples converted to Judaism before the 10th centuary as did every one of that time ...everyone converted to one of the three Political/religious Dogma Alliences. Before that time Religions were interacting and freethinking.

I don't have time now we can battle later if ya like ......

 

97%? Not even close:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/about/visitorcomments/comment_details.cfm?ItemNo=1173


The number is closer to 73% according to this source. Now ask, how many Bible adhering Jews are Zionist? The number is closer to ZERO because the Bible does not sanction Zionist ideology.

 

I dont believe your 97 % - nore abt the goodwill of Christian Zionists, especially those
praying for all Jews be corralled /herded together in one spot (Israel) in preparation for RAPTURE / End Times /the second coming of Christ who'll defeat the Jewish anti-christ and at a stroke vaporize all unbelieving/disbelieving Jews and save only those Jews who repent and seek salvation in Christ.

OMG - What an unholy alliance. With friends like that , who needs enemies ? HAHAHAHA


btw - If Christ dont come , your Right-Wing Christian zionists friends might get so *issed off and decide to carry out their Lord's wishes + nuke the disbelieving Jews who still reject Christ, themselves.

- Hallelujah. (hehehe)

 

No one in this world can take any figure for granted from a group (approximate. 5 to 6 thousand anti Zionists) disturbed Jews and their Rabbi who's only income is from these 5000 lunatics... They are a bunch of reprobates/retrograded numbskulls who adhere to the bible from morn to sundown... They are not in this world but rather in the world where their Rabbi is their God... and they adhere to all his wishes and commands. There is nothing constructive in this group, there is only deception, fantasy belief and ignorance... If someone tells you that you have no right to redeem the Jewish patrimony because the Messiah has not yet come and you believe him, then you should join the rank of these moonstruck people.

Neturei Karta Leader Meir Hirsch Welcomes Raed Sallah upon his Return .


http://youtu.be/QAPMoFn5Oio

 

Ehm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Zionism

 

Why Fewer Young American Jews Share Their Parents’ View of Israel

The Palestinian bid for recognition at the U.N. has elicited differing responses within the Jewish community. Younger American Jews are more likely than their parents to be acquainted with the Palestinians and their story


EXTRACT :

"Like many young American Jews, during my senior year of college I took the free trip to Israel offered by the Taglit-Birthright program. The bliss I felt floating in the Dead Sea, sampling succulent fruits grown by Jewish farmers and roaming the medieval city of Safed, the historic center of Kabbalah mysticism, was tempered by other experiences: watching the construction of the imposing “security” fence, which not only tamped down terrorist attacks but also separated Palestinian villagers from their land and water supply. I spent hours in hushed conversation with a young Israeli soldier who was horrified by what he said was the routinely rough and contemptuous treatment of Palestinian civilians at Israeli military checkpoints.

That trip deepened my conviction that as an American Jew, I could no longer in good conscience offer Israel unquestioning support. I’m not alone. Polling of young American Jews shows that with the exception of the Orthodox, many of us feel less attached to Israel than do our baby boomer parents, who came of age during the era of the 1967 and 1973 wars, when Israel was less of an aggressor and more a victim. A 2007 poll by Steven Cohen of Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman of the University of California at Davis found that although the majority of American Jews of all ages continue to identify as “pro-Israel,” those under 35 are less likely to identify as “Zionist.” Over 40% of American Jews under 35 believe that “Israel occupies land belonging to someone else,” and over 30% report sometimes feeling “ashamed” of Israel’s actions.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2011/09/29/wh...e-their-parents-view-of-israel/#ixzz29rnLPnOK


ENJOY - (wink)

 

enjoy double wink...

Israel-defying all odds
http://youtu.be/4xgtnEwIE5Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgtnEwIE5Y&feature=related

 

I don't have a problem with zionists per se. As far as I am concerned they can go ahead with their "God given mission" to own Israel. But to the U.S., Israel is a complete liability. If God is on their side, they don't really need any more US backing, now do they? Go, Israel, live your crazy dream. Just leave me out of it.

 

Do not forget your lovely mask on your way out... another good one the Mask: DO NOT LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT...

The mask and explanation give me a laughing thrill...

 

Do not forget your lovely mask on your way out... another good one the Mask: DO NOT LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT...

The mask and explanation give me a laughing thrill...

 

Good thinking I agree... Israel is doing well and should take care of its own...

Watch this clip and you will get some basics.

The US under Obama and Israel - Daylight (Must-See)

This is a must-see and must-share video on the facts behind the way President Obama has been towards Israel since he has been President. No video highlights this issue as well as this one does.


http://bit.ly/T5X0L6

 

Yes it "should " but has never done so, nore today able to "take care of its own" without the support and backing of a US President.


Your video boils down to a typical Jewishe whining , shifting blame on a US President who's brave enough to try putting US interests ahead of Israel's illegal expansion / methodical theft of Palestinian lands.

Why do you think america or Europe should continue being an accomplice to Israel's dirty deeds ? ?

...

......

 

Speaking of whining,,, how about watching the clip... I am not whining you are friend! I am just the messenger and you decide...
I say tomatoes and you say tomaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatoes. Who is right?

 

Perhaps this will explain:

A plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies.

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: “Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”


Time’s report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948 ) was similar: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return” (The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, Beirut, 1973, Part 1, pp. 386-387).




...
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=121275

Needless to say your other "MYTH ALERTS" are just as easily debunked and shown for what they really are - arab [hmm] myths and lies.

 

Why do Zionist apologists demand special debating privileges?

because if you dont give in to their tantrums they blow up hotels like the King David and they dont care if they kill 99 people including Jews and the people who helped them create the cancer called israel