I was in a Hezbollah tunnel

[Mrs Ten Names]

I bet

Rest your finger on the link, and an option to copy will appear.

 

[Nwgs2]

Rest your finger on the link, and an option to copy will appear.

I’ve tried, it’s just not working at all!!

Sorry.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

I’ve tried, it’s just not working at all!!

Sorry.

I look forward to when you can.
But at the moment I'm guessing it's all from an Israeli propaganda web site.

From a Palestine viewpoint they see a 'Right of Return' as a precursor to a peace deal.
A similar right of return enjoyed by Jews, even if they've never lived there.
And the Palestinian Right of return is strongly opposed by Israel even for those Palestinians that did live there, which is clear and unambiguous evidence of ethnic cleansing.

The majority of Palestinians consider that their homeland was lost during the establishment of Israel in 1948, and see the right of return as crucial to a peace agreement with Israel, even if the vast majority of surviving refugees and their descendants do not exercise that right. The Palestinians consider the vast majority of refugees as victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and cite massacres such as Deir Yassin. All Palestinian political and militant groups, both Islamist and socialist, strongly support a right of return. The Palestinian National Authority views the right of return as a non-negotiable right.

Almost all Israeli Jews oppose a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees on the grounds that allowing such an influx of Palestinians would render Jews a minority in Israel, thus transforming Israel into an Arab-Muslim state.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ajohn]

### 1. **Terrorist Designation**

Terrorism in this area against the west which politically Israel is has a consistent feature, They are incapable of waging what you might call a conventional war. The towers in the US are an extreme example of a result of this. They have their views. Little matters if we agree with them and politics may add more to views about it all.

Sometime countries are invaded as a solution. Doesn't appear to work out well and if the wrong western power does it the terrorists may receive western help. Or in Syria's case have hidden complications that means that the helped group had no hope.

On one Israeli Lebanon invasion things didn't go that well for Israel. Reason Iran support, far more than expected. It doesn't take any imagination at all as to why Iran got involved - the usual for the whole area. They are also double dammed as they had a revolution to get shut of the Shah.

Iraq - well it was an ally for a while against Iran. Bin ruddy Laden was too, for a while.

 

[ajohn]

Who the hell posted something about X which has nothing to do with the topic and encourages a certain poster to add yet more. Use X as a source of info - you must be kidding in lots of cases.

 

[Vinty]

**Continuous Presence**
- **Small Jewish Communities**

There has been a continuous Jewish presence in most countries in the Middle East.
The Palestine region has been continuously inhabited by other peoples for 1000's of years before the Jewish religion existed.

According to the Bible,Abraham the Patriarch was from the land of UR in Iraq and the terroritory claimed by the seed of Abraham was already inhabited by other peoples.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Who the hell posted something about X which has nothing to do with the topic

I did, and it was in relation to the ability to control the 'history' by denying the opportunity by the opposition, to present articles, etc, to present a fair and balanced view of history, which this thread claimed to desire.

 

[ajohn]

I did, and it was in relation to the ability to control the 'history' by denying the opportunity by the opposition, to present articles, etc, to present a fair and balanced view of history, which this thread claimed to desire.

And you wonder why you get banned.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

And you wonder why you get banned.

You don't think it was relevant at the time.
I did.
We can agree to differ.
if that is, in your opinion, a reasonable excuse to ban me, then you're welcome to that opinion.

 

[ajohn]

Right of return is an oddball. Don't bother. The wiki page says no right since 2024 and offers no proof.

UN resolutions on it - all General Council not Security Council. Maybe they thought it was too tricky.

It did crop up in one deal. Mentioned on the wiki right at the end
The 2003 Geneva Accord, which was an agreement between individuals and not between official representatives of the government of Israel and the Palestinian people, completely relinquished the idea of a Right of Return. This document is extra-governmental and, therefore, unofficial and non-binding.
The most strange deal of all.

All the wiki does is explain views, No reason to read them a they are obvious.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is it unusual for the General Council to come up with different views to the Security Council - wll no it isn't.

International view. Only seems to relate to the UNHCR suggesting there are laws,

For the millions of people forced to flee, returning home concludes an often traumatic time in exile. It may happen months, years, or even decades after they left.
.
.
Refugees and internally displaced people can only return home in safety once the root causes for their displacement have been addressed and lasting peace is achieved. In 2023, nearly 1.1 million refugees were able to voluntarily return to their country. A further 5.1 million internally displaced people (people who are displaced within the borders of their own country) returned to their place of origin.

Returnees | UNHCR UK

UNHCR supports refugees and other forcibly displaced people to return home. We ensure they can return safely and continue to support them as they rebuild their lives.

www.unhcr.org

 

[StephenStephen]

But you failed to criticise his use of offensive, abusive, false accusations, and you didn't like my tone?

Which do you dislike most: offensive, abusive, false accusations, or a strenuous, even vociferous, argument, based on facts and reality?

For me, it's not about what I dislike most. It's about what I think will have the most helpful, and the least harmful effect.

I fail to see how condemning posts which make no claim of reasonableness, and seem unlikely to change, helps the people suffering in the region. I particularly don't see how it helps the people of Palestine.

I was hoping I might nudge you to make your points in a way which was more likely to keep minds and hearts open to the suffering in the region.

I aim to have no interest in being right in all this, but I probably repeatedly fail in this.
As I said before, we probably all think we're on the side of the angels.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

For me, it's not about what I dislike most. It's about what I think will have the most helpful, and the least harmful effect.

Sure, we all have our own reasons for posting.
Mine is invariably to correct misrepresentations, unsupported claims or bigoted comments.

But I was surprised that you seemed to find the abusive, offensive false allegations to be benign, whereas my vociferous argumentative style, focussing on what I consider to be the kernel of the issues under discussion, offended your sensibilities.

I fail to see how condemning posts which make no claim of reasonableness, and seem unlikely to change, helps the people suffering in the region. I particularly don't see how it helps the people of Palestine.

For sure, yet you appear to be totally unconcerned with the one-sided propaganda posted by others.
I firmly stand by my mocking of nwgs2's comment of desiring a balanced intelligent discussion. You're obviously not familiar with his style.

I was hoping I might nudge you to make your points in a way which was more likely to keep minds and hearts open to the suffering in the region.

Is that an admission that you don't bother admonishing others because you consider it would be a waste of your time?

I aim to have no interest in being right in all this, but I probably repeatedly fail in this.
As I said before, we probably all think we're on the side of the angels.

I really don't see it as thinking I'm right, I'm more interested in correcting misinformation, often presented with no supporting documentation and a biased viewpoint, and my version is usually supported with eminent articles, etc.

Occasionally I detect an ulterior motive for the claims, versions presented, etc, and I seek to identify and expose these ulterior motives, by engaging with the proponents.
Frequently, those proponents refuse to engage with me, and claim to be ignoring me. that's fine by me. I'll continue to respond to their posts where appropriate.

Thanks for your time and comments.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Right of return is an oddball. Don't bother. The wiki page says no right since 2024 and offers no proof.

UN resolutions on it - all General Council not Security Council. Maybe they thought it was too tricky.

It did crop up in one deal. Mentioned on the wiki right at the end
The 2003 Geneva Accord, which was an agreement between individuals and not between official representatives of the government of Israel and the Palestinian people, completely relinquished the idea of a Right of Return. This document is extra-governmental and, therefore, unofficial and non-binding.
The most strange deal of all.

All the wiki does is explain views, No reason to read them a they are obvious.

Palestinian right of return - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is it unusual for the General Council to come up with different views to the Security Council - wll no it isn't.

International view. Only seems to relate to the UNHCR suggesting there are laws,

For the millions of people forced to flee, returning home concludes an often traumatic time in exile. It may happen months, years, or even decades after they left.
.
.
Refugees and internally displaced people can only return home in safety once the root causes for their displacement have been addressed and lasting peace is achieved. In 2023, nearly 1.1 million refugees were able to voluntarily return to their country. A further 5.1 million internally displaced people (people who are displaced within the borders of their own country) returned to their place of origin.

Returnees | UNHCR UK

UNHCR supports refugees and other forcibly displaced people to return home. We ensure they can return safely and continue to support them as they rebuild their lives.

www.unhcr.org

I think you've posted in the wrong thread, and your comments are poorly thought-out, and incorrect, or even irrelevant.
For instance, the 2003 Geneva accord is by far and away, irrelevant. It was an agreement by a few individuals only.

You've also omitted the right of return as an inalienable right. UN Resolution 3236

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:
   1. (a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
   2. (b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;
2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;
3. Emphasizes that full respect for and the realization of these inalienable rights of the Palestinian people are indispensable for the solution of the question of Palestine;

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 (XXIX) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nwgs2]

Sure, we all have our own reasons for posting.
Mine is invariably to correct misrepresentations, unsupported claims or bigoted comments.

But I was surprised that you seemed to find the abusive, offensive false allegations to be benign, whereas my vociferous argumentative style, focussing on what I consider to be the kernel of the issues under discussion, offended your sensibilities.



For sure, yet you appear to be totally unconcerned with the one-sided propaganda posted by others.
I firmly stand by my mocking of nwgs2's comment of desiring a balanced intelligent discussion. You're obviously not familiar with his style.



Is that an admission that you don't bother admonishing others because you consider it would be a waste of your time?



I really don't see it as thinking I'm right, I'm more interested in correcting misinformation, often presented with no supporting documentation and a biased viewpoint, and my version is usually supported with eminent articles, etc.

Occasionally I detect an ulterior motive for the claims, versions presented, etc, and I seek to identify and expose these ulterior motives, by engaging with the proponents.
Frequently, those proponents refuse to engage with me, and claim to be ignoring me. that's fine by me. I'll continue to respond to their posts where appropriate.

Thanks for your time and comments.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

View attachment 356891View attachment 356891

Are you trying to fit your fist in your mouth?
I hope you realise it's an indication of violent tendencies, and you might need help.

- Find & Share on GIPHY

Discover & share this angry shocked Animated GIF by Apartments.com with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs.

giphy.com