UN Panel: Israeli Settlements Are Illegal

[Dakota_Roberts]

She must have gotten it from me. I have been posting talkbacks for 12 years- long before most people- and long before she posted that talkback. I have been quoted many times in my posts- sometimes verbatim, and an Internet search might even turn up exact posts of mine from before then. Hers was only 2 years ago.

In any case, I provided you with sources. Enjoy!

Do you use the handle YKohen on these “talkbacks” things?

Well, if that is the case then I am baffled by the cropping from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 ed. it seems to contradict the source, for example under the population header under the Palestine article

The sedentary population of the country villages - the fellahin, or agriculturists - is, on the whole, comparatively unmixed; but traces of various intrusive strains assert themselves. It is by no means unreasonable to suppose that there is a fundamental Canaanite element in this population: the " hewers of wood and drawers of water " often remain undisturbed through successive occupations of a land; and there is a remarkable correspondence of type between many of the modern fellahin and skeletons of ancient inhabitants which have been recovered in the course of excavation. New elements no doubt came in under the Assyrian, Persian and Roman dominations, and in more recent times there has been much contamination. The spread of Islam introduced a very considerable Neo-Arabian infusion. Those from southern Arabia were known as the Yaman tribe, those from northern Arabia the Kais (Qais). These two divisions absorbed the previous peasant population, and still nominally exist; down to the middle of the 10th century they were a fruitful source of quarrels and of bloodshed. The two great clans were further subdivided into families, but these minor divisions are also being gradually broken down. In the 10th century the short-lived Egyptian government introduced into the population an element from that country which still persists in the villages. These newcomers have not been completely assimilated with the villagers among whom they have found a home; the latter despise them, and discourage intermarriage.

 

[mercytruth]

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, it has been truly remarkable.
I doubt if I have anything to offer that has not been implied or already stated.

Catholic/Christian forgiveness does not imply trust, nor does it necessarily lead to repentance as YKohen has articulated so well. However, repentance can and should lead to trust. As it is, neither the Arabs nor the Israelis trust each other. Is it because there is a lack of repentance on both sides?

Which leads to the OP’s original question as it applies to repentance and trust. Are both the Arabs and Israel willing to abide by the original UN resolution of 1948 for partition? If they are, are they willing to take the necessary steps of repentance to get to that place of agreement and trust with each other?

 

[YKohen]

Do you use the handle YKohen on these “talkbacks” things?

I proved that I predated her post by years. If you want, I can look back even further, but it’s already a case of QED. Deal.

Well, if that is the case then I am baffled by the cropping from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1911 ed. it seems to contradict the source, for example under the population header under the Palestine article

Since you’re “baffled”, perhaps this “Palestinian” leader can unbaffle you:

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZtiUdl9Cd0

Is he lying?

 

[YKohen]

Are both the Arabs and Israel willing to abide by the original UN resolution of 1948 for partition? If they are, are they willing to take the necessary steps of repentance to get to that place of agreement and trust with each other?

That train left the station long ago. The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 (and claimed that the UN had no authority). They don’t get a 65 year rewind.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I proved that I predated her post by years. If you want, I can look back even further, but it’s already a case of QED. Deal.

Since you’re “baffled”, perhaps this “Palestinian” leader can unbaffle you:

youtube.com/watch?v=-ZtiUdl9Cd0

Is he lying?

When I started writing my post you had not yet edited yours

That is a non sequitur, it doesn’t have relevancy to the level of cropping in your quote of the esteemed Encyclopedia Britannica.

Regarding the video as so much of Hamas is liars, thieves and thugs I can’t take anything they say seriously, plus this guy is a politician and we all know how trustworthy (or lack thereof) the typical politician is.

 

[YKohen]

When I started writing my post you had not yet edited yours

Irrelevant. The best you could have done was claim that I was lying, and then I would have posted that like from years before her talkback.

That is a non sequitur, it doesn’t have relevancy to the level of cropping in your quote of the esteemed Encyclopedia Britannica.

Regarding the video as so much of Hamas is liars, thieves and thugs I can’t take anything they say seriously, plus this guy is a politician and we all know how trustworthy (or lack thereof) the typical politician is.

If anything, they would want to claim that they were always here- the descendants ofthe Canaanites and Philistines. It would go against their own argument to claim otherwise- but they did,

And again, I brought a whole lot of other sources as well.

By the way, if you want to look up the exact quote about 5000 Muslims total living in Jerusalem in 1844, it’s on page 33 of Dr. Ernst Gustav Schultz’s Jerusalem, Eine Vorlesung (page 42 in the electronic copy):

archive.org/stream/jerusalemeinevo00schugoog#page/n40/mode/2up

 

[danrooke]

YKohen,

Thank you for your invite, and responses. The closeness of travel isn’t the issue as such, when a person, such as me, is in the Holy Land for the first time, one wants to go visit places like Jerusalem and other important places. Next time I go I will do my best to visit you, not sure which summer camp I’ll be stationed, if I have the spare time; as you must be aware, the Holy Land cannot be seen in one short visit.

Back to our disagreement.

I think you failed to see that point I was making.

Do you want there to be a war?

I don’t think you do. So did ever Palestinian I spoke to.

Do you want to live in peace?

I think you do. So did ever Palestinian I spoke to.

That is common ground.

There may be Palestinians who don’t want peace and there may be Israelis who don’t want peace, both are not helping those who want to stop the war and live in peace.

It’s strange, don’t you think, that those same Israeli’s and their supporters, such Michael Coren who has been interviewed on this radio program several times, will refer to Iran in the most horrible ways and the Islamic faith in the most horrible ways and all things associated with it. AND those same Palestinians and their supporters, such as the myriad of anti-Semitic people, refer to the anyone who is in power as evil Jews, and talk about the west as some very large Sodom.

Do you see how bashing the other side makes the situation worse?

I see you are strong in your convictions on this matter, and my words might not be enough to help you see, but when you say that the war is about existence and about defence you’re ignoring reality; In the same way as those of the other side. When they say that the state of Israel should not have existed, and that there cannot be peace with an Israeli state, they are wrong, simply because the state exists now. Flip it over and your presentation is of a scary picture, are you saying that Iran cannot exist? Do you not see the double standard? Do you not see the hypocrisy? Peace for us and not for them. Countries can commit terrible offences, genocide, slavery, et cetera; point is some of those countries still exist; do they still commit these crimes? NO. Why? They were convinced to change their minds.

There are so many examples throughout history where individuals have stood up to the wrongs in the world to right them, does it matter if they are Catholic or not? Of course, correct me if I’m wrong, these good people were perhaps more catholic then I am. (this was my rebuttal to your comment on Ghandi)

(I like to ask lots of questions )

Ask yourself this question: When I argue with someone who thinks Israel is an evil Zionist state bent on world domination, do I try to help him understand where he is mistaken or am I actually attacking him with words?

what’s the expression, fight fire with fire?

Fight the man and you’ll only make him hate you, point out he is wrong and you’ll win. Reminds me of the book of Daniel.

anyway, once peace in established then you are FREE to present the arguments of the Historical claims of the Jewish people on the land so as to divide up the land properly, sort out the compensation that should be incurred for the damages caused by war and all that Jazz.

Easiest way to sort the mess out is to stop making a mess.

Have a super day!!

Dan.

 

[YKohen]

I think you failed to see that point I was making.

Do you want there to be a war?

Of course I see the point you were making. You just missed the points I have been making.

1. This conflict isn’t territorial. It is existential. For the Arabs, no Israel can exist.
2. For them, “peace” means no Jews (and ultimately, no Christians).
3. G-d promised this land to us in the Bible. It is no coincidence that we are here.

Do you want to live in peace?

I think you do. So did ever Palestinian I spoke to.

You must have missed some, because as per this Arab World for Research & Development (AWRAD) public opinion poll 2 months ago:

• More “Palestinians” oppose a 2-state solution than support it
• 88 Percent Of “Palestinians” Believe Armed Struggle Is The Best Way To Achieve Independence
• More “Palestinians” (40 percent) believe that the approach supported by Hamas and other militant groups is preferable to that supported by Fatah and President Abbas

Do you see how bashing the other side makes the situation worse?

Bashing isn’t the cause of the problems. Continued Arab intransigence and aggression is.

When they say that the state of Israel should not have existed, and that there cannot be peace with an Israeli state, they are wrong, simply because the state exists now. Flip it over and your presentation is of a scary picture, are you saying that Iran cannot exist? Do you not see the double standard? Do you not see the hypocrisy? Peace for us and not for them. Countries can commit terrible offences, genocide, slavery, et cetera; point is some of those countries still exist; do they still commit these crimes? NO. Why? They were convinced to change their minds.

Nobody says that Iran can’t exist- although Iran, like a majority of the would-have-been “Palestinians” do say that Israel can’t exist- even now.

There are so many examples throughout history where individuals have stood up to the wrongs in the world to right them, does it matter if they are Catholic or not? Of course, correct me if I’m wrong, these good people were perhaps more catholic then I am. (this was my rebuttal to your comment on Ghandi)

To me, it obviously doesn’t matter if one is Catholic or not. Jews believe that good and bad people can be in every nation- every society.

But what Ghandi wrote there wasn’t bad: It was naively stupid.

Ask yourself this question: When I argue with someone who thinks Israel is an evil Zionist state bent on world domination, do I try to help him understand where he is mistaken or am I actually attacking him with words?

If we’re bent on world domination, we sure are doing a poor job- AND I’m personally not getting my cut.

Generally, if one already believes that Israel is “an evil Zionist state bent on world domination”, there’s not much anyone can do to change his/her mind.

anyway, once peace in established then you are FREE to present the arguments of the Historical claims of the Jewish people on the land so as to divide up the land properly, sort out the compensation that should be incurred for the damages caused by war and all that Jazz.

I disagree. And if you mean, give the Arabs land, then it’s already too late.

Easiest way to sort the mess out is to stop making a mess.

I agree with that, which is why I support the disbanding of the PA and Hamas immediately.

Best.

 

[danrooke]

Hello again YKohen,

Because I Like the last word

I’m ignoring your points because they only justify the war.

Again your use of bias statistics seem to show either a view to win the argument or further justify the war (which could be considered the same thing)

I think your proving my “bashing” statement getting us nowhere, when you reason by bashing the other side.

If find the talk of war against Iran contradictory to the next claim. Aside from the legitimate claim of descent of the Palestinian people, why should race matter in this debate? Iranians are Iranians/Persians (granted they were once ruled by Arab kings, but not anymore)

Of course Ghandi was speaking in context of doing evil to stop evil (which makes no sense), you are right though that in terms of justice it is somewhat lacking (again it makes more sense therefore he was using a specific context).

And i think this point seems to prove me right, I also phrase my point rather poorly the first time round. One either attacks another to win an argument or resolve to issues in intellect/information. Sounds the same but give different results.

You disagree? You think that you should be making demands from opposite ends of a sword?

My friend, the conflict is very dirty on all sides. Settlements, human rights abuses, murder, terror, death of children, demolition of homes, lack of water, anger, sorrow, madness, fear, immorality. That’s what people see when they look at the Holy Land now, what has made that picture? This conflict. Please, I am NOT trying to say YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING ABOUT WHO IS TO BLAME, AND WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO WHAT, all I’m saying is STOP KILLING EACHOTHER, STOP FIGHTING, STOP BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Thanks,

Dan.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Considering the spiritual foundations of the UN and its goals, they want the world to be against Israel. Didn’t the wacko who founded Theosophy state that Jews deserved the holocaust because of their karma? She also said that Christians should be killed because they are holding back spiritual evolution.

 

[mercytruth]

That train left the station long ago. The Arabs violently rejected UN 181 (and claimed that the UN had no authority). They don’t get a 65 year rewind.

Are not the two oaths still binding to the Jewish people per our previous discussion on this issue? That is to say, since the nations (the UN) established the legitimacy of the state of Israel, is not Israel bound by the resolution of the UN regarding the partition of 1948?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Oaths

 

[Darryl1958]

Are not the two oaths still binding to the Jewish people per our previous discussion on this issue? That is to say, since the nations (the UN) established the legitimacy of the state of Israel, is not Israel bound by the resolution of the UN regarding the partition of 1948?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Oaths

The biggest bloc in the UN since the break up of the Soviet Union is the OIC.
Israel is not bound to the political decision making of those sworn to its destruction.

 

[mercytruth]

The biggest bloc in the UN since the break up of the Soviet Union is the OIC.
Israel is not bound to the political decision making of those sworn to its destruction.

The reality is that we have a religious/geo-political conflict. There needs to be some honest dialogue around the issues of this conflict. For religious Jews they are bound by the two oaths of God.

As religious Jews, they were not to establish their own government apart from the Messiah unless the nations approved. The UN established the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but it also partioned the land to the ‘Palestinians’. Religious Jews of Israel are bound by guidelines that the UN established in 1947/48.

Until Messiah comes, there will be no perfect justice or peace, but we all must strive to be true to our word. The pefect judge when he comes, will ensure that justice and peace are meted out. In the meantime we are required to love mercy, do justly and walk humbly
before G-d.

Palestinian President Abbas admitted that the Arabs were wrong in opposing the 1947 mandate for the partition of the land. He has chosen to humble himself on this issue.

haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-arab-world-was-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

I think that these two factors should be considered today, rather than what a particular bloc within the UN is advocating today.

God’s peace

micah

 

[YKohen]

I’m ignoring your points because they only justify the war.

Again your use of bias statistics seem to show either a view to win the argument or further justify the war (which could be considered the same thing)

You are ignoring my points because you can’t accept the cold,hard facts.

The statistics I brought above are from an Arab polling group. It isn’t about winning an argument or any desire to fight a war. It’s about survival, and ignoring facts doesn’t help.

If find the talk of war against Iran contradictory to the next claim.

I haven’t discussed war against Iran here at all. Only you have.

Aside from the legitimate claim of descent of the Palestinian people, why should race matter in this debate? Iranians are Iranians/Persians (granted they were once ruled by Arab kings, but not anymore)

I haven’t discussed race here at all. Only you have. I specifically said that race isn’t an issue.

For further clarification, see Genesis 25:5-6.

Of course Ghandi was speaking in context of doing evil to stop evil (which makes no sense), you are right though that in terms of justice it is somewhat lacking (again it makes more sense therefore he was using a specific context).

Ghandi was advising the Jews of Germany to resist Naziism non-violently, and was advising the Allies not to fight against Nazi Germany.

I am NOT trying to say YOU ARE WRONG ON EVERYTHING ABOUT WHO IS TO BLAME, AND WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO WHAT, all I’m saying is STOP KILLING EACHOTHER, STOP FIGHTING, STOP BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW.

There will be no more war the day the Arabs stiop dreaming of throwing the jews into the sea. And as to “international law”, since it justifies and accepts ethnically cleansing us from our land, it is illegitimate and not lawful.

 

[YKohen]

Are not the two oaths still binding to the Jewish people per our previous discussion on this issue? That is to say, since the nations (the UN) established the legitimacy of the state of Israel, is not Israel bound by the resolution of the UN regarding the partition of 1948?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Oaths

Not in the least. In fact, the number of Jews who think that they are is very small. And they’re a package deal. Either all are binding or none are. None are.

Again, we accepted the partition in 1948. The Arabs didn’t. They fought wars against it. The clock has since moved ahead 65 years. No country would agree to turn back the clock after being attacked for so long by so many. We’re no different.

 

[OneSheep]

I understand the limitations of Papal infallibility. I looked it up to be clear:
It is only in connection with doctrinal authority as such that, practically speaking, this question of infallibility arises…

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

What I posted above definitely falls within this definition, and the Church hasn’t claimed otherwise, to the best of my knowledge.

Please note that in the link you sent me clearly states that infallibility applies to statements regarding faith and morals. It does not apply to justifications for a specific war or against Galileo, etc.

Now, you may find Catholics who agree with you, but I again state that everyone is capable of error, even when making statements about faith and morals, and even if you are the Pope. If a pope has made any such errors, I forgive him. I invite you to forgive our popes and historical figures in our Church. I have done so.

For a recap on our “forgiveness” conversation, I began with this statement:

Let me be a Palestinian for a moment. YKohen, your people have taken my land and have killed my children. I know you think I have deserved this. I forgive you. I understand your position, and I will no longer hold it against you. You see this land as yours, and you fear us and despise us, especially when we react violently. I am just as capable of wanting your land and despising you, and in fact I am guilty of these things too. I have in the past wanted to continue punishing you for what you have done to me, but I no longer want to do so. I am forgiving you even though you have not repented from taking our land, restricting our freedom, and killing us. I am doing so because this is the reconciliation and peace that my soul wants.

What is your response to this Palestinian?

Your first response was:

Again, since this isn’t what happened, it is moot. It’s like me asking if you still beat your wife.

So I responded as follows:

So what you are saying is that though my children have been killed by your military, and my land has taken from me by your government, you never intended to take what belonged to someone else, nor did your government intend to kill my children. I see your point of view.

But this is what has happened in my view. I am not wrong, and nothing you can say will convince me I am wrong, for my family has owned this land for many generations, and your weapons have killed my children. But please, do not tell me I am wrong, this is not the point of what I have to say. The point of what I have to say is that I have been very angry and hurt. And though your government continues to do these things, which I see as “not repenting”, and continues to build settlements that I cannot live in, I forgive you Israelis for all of these things. I no longer hold it against your government or you if you support your governments actions.

And your response was:

No. You don’t get it. The only reason why ANYONE has been killed is because the ARABS have chosen war. We didn’t. They also took our land whenever they could. This is why every single Jew was ethnically cleansed from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza in 1948 (1929 in Hebron, etc.), and even when there were no Jews here,they still chose war.

That’s their choice.

Here is my next response, as the fictional “OneSheep the Palestinian who forgives”:

Indeed, though war is to be understood in the context of escalation, I cannot deny that our side has done its share of the escalation. I have taken the time to forgive those Palestinians who escalate the conflict. There has been plenty of “eye for an eye” going on in other places too, I cannot deny this. Our peoples have banished each other from lands we control. The point of what I am saying, though, has nothing to do with “who started this”.

What I am saying is that I used to hold your acts against you, and I no longer do. I have forgiven you. I know that you may be thinking “I never deserved your hatred”, but the fact is that I did hate, for understandable reasons, and now I do not. I have forgiven you. I see that you are a person, a human being, just like me, not an object of my contempt. By an act of my will, I have forgiven, because doing so is what my soul truly wants.

What is your next response? Remember, this is an investigation into seeing if forgiveness without repentance will lead to tyranny and chaos. Let us see where this goes. I look forward to your response. If you don’t mind, when you do respond, please contain the whole of my latest statement, it will save me some cutting and pasting. Just a request, not a demand.

 

[YKohen]

The reality is that we have a religious/geo-political conflict. There needs to be some honest dialogue around the issues of this conflict. For religious Jews they are bound by the two oaths of God.

There were 3 oaths. You don’t seem to understand them- or how they worked.

As religious Jews, they were not to establish their own government apart from the Messiah unless the nations approved.

That was ONE interpretation among numerous.

The UN established the legitimacy of the state of Israel, but it also partioned the land to the ‘Palestinians’. Religious Jews of Israel are bound by guidelines that the UN established in 1947/48.

Wrong. According to that one interpretation, we were bound by UN guidelines. In fact, we accepted those guidelines. The Arabs didn’t. Once they chose war, we were no longer bound.

Until Messiah comes, there will be no perfect justice or peace, but we all must strive to be true to our word. The pefect judge when he comes, will ensure that justice and peace are meted out. In the meantime we are required to love mercy, do justly and walk humbly before G-d.

Agreed, of course.

Palestinian President Abbas admitted that the Arabs were wrong in opposing the 1947 mandate for the partition of the land. He has chosen to humble himself on this issue.

haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-arab-world-was-wrong-to-reject-1947-partition-plan-1.392560

Here is their Abbas speaking:

"DON’T PRESENT TO US ‘THE JEWISH STATE’. WE WILL NEVER ACCEPT IT. WE WILL NEVER ACCEPT THESE SAYINGS.

youtube.com/watch?v=CdqoMKZaTxU&feature=player_embedded

Abbas vows: No room for Israelis in Palestinian state
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH
12/25/2010

jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=200935

 

[YKohen]

Please note that in the link you sent me clearly states that infallibility applies to statements regarding faith and morals. It does not apply to justifications for a specific war or against Galileo, etc.

Galileo WAS ordered to repent- and was punished by the Church; not forgiven at the time.

Has the Church ever said it was wrong for going to free the Holy land in the Crusades? By your logic, they should have forgiven the Muslims. They didn’t.

Has the Church ever said it was wrong for waging war against the Albigensian heresy? Martin Luther? The Inquisition?

You are clearly going against Church teachings and actions.

In fact, what you are advocating is closer to the Anabaptists- whom the Church fought against.

 

[mercytruth]

Not in the least. In fact, the number of Jews who think that they are is very small. And they’re a package deal. Either all are binding or none are. None are.

Again, we accepted the partition in 1948. The Arabs didn’t. They fought wars against it. The clock has since moved ahead 65 years. No country would agree to turn back the clock after being attacked for so long by so many. We’re no different.

Clarification between religious Zionists and orthodox Jews against Zionism (of which there are very few as you say).

Religious Zionists no longer consider the two oaths to be binding, because they did not take the land by force, but by permission of the nations (via the UN) Israel was established as a nation.

Israel agreed to the terms of the establishment of the nation of Israel which included partition. It seems reasonably clear that religious Zionists are bound by that UN agreement if they are to be freed from the two oaths of G-d regardless of what the Arabs failed to agree to in the past.

shalom

micah

 

[YKohen]

Clarification between religious Zionists and orthodox Jews against Zionism (of which there are very few as you say).

Religious Zionists no longer consider the two oaths to be binding, because they did not take the land by force, but by permission of the nations (via the UN) Israel was established as a nation.

There were 3 oaths. It was a package deal. Either all were in force, or none were in force. Once the 3rd was broken by the nations, the first 2 were no longer in force.

Alternatively, oaths aren’t commandments. Commandments transcend time and space. Oaths have a “shelf-life” of 1000 years. That 1000 years ended hundreds of years ago.

Israel agreed to the terms of the establishment of the nation of Israel which included partition. It seems reasonably clear that religious Zionists are bound by that UN agreement if they are to be freed from the two oaths of G-d regardless of what the Arabs failed to agree to in the past.

Nope. Again, even according to the view that after 1000 years they were in force, they’re not standalones. They’re all parts of 1 “contract”. Break one part, and the contract is null and void.