President Putin: I Support Israel

[GURU DUTT]

Bollywood movie

keep dreaming and hiding your head in sands of denial

You Indians are ready to sell your everything for Israeli weapons .

Believe me , Its not worthy .

well as they say "choro ko sare nazar ate hain chor"= thieves think all world is a thief... nuff said

Any one asking you who you support?-
Stop trying to become relevant-

look whos talking ......

sounds like a load of crap to me to be honest with you.

well thats cause you you are from a nation which is still confused about your "national identity & still asks questions like whtas keeping pakistanm together , pakistan ka matlab kya & why was pakistan made"even after 66 years of so called "independence" and ..khair jane do you wont get it .. trust me

 

[GURU DUTT]

The ground reality in gaza

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=266497703553608

 

[xenon54 out]

You mean in the same way that it was the Turks and the British that mattered on the issue of Jewish Immigration.
The poor Arab peasants should have no say.
Are You sure that You are consistent?

It was the wealthy Arab Landlords in the first place who sold their lands to the Jews in Palestine.

Jewish land purchase in Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the first half of the 19th century, no foreigners were allowed to purchase land in Palestine. This was official Turkish policy until 1856 and in practice until 1867.[5] When it came to the national aspirations of the Zionist movement, the Ottoman Empire opposed the idea of Jewish self-rule in Palestine, fearing it may lose control of Palestine after recently having lost other territories to various European powers.

The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers".[8] Many of the fellahin did not understand the importance of the registers and therefore the wealthy families took advantage of this. Jewish buyers who were looking for large tracts of land found it favorable to purchase from the wealthy owners. As well many small farmers became in debt to rich families which lead to the transfer of land to the new owners and then eventually to the Jewish buyers.

Jewish rabbis purchasing land from an Arab landowner, 1920s.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

What do you mean occupies or not??? It means a lot. Khan of kalat was legal ruler of Kalat. He didn't come from some other continent to rule Kalat. If you want to compare apples and oranges then at least draw a better comparison. Israel is one unique case which can't be compared to any other region of the world. Where people from all over the world were brought to a place and were made the legal owner of that place given the right to kill the people who live their already before. A soviet Jew has become the owner of the land and has full rights to kill/loot/harass a Palestinian.

I am surprised at the lame logic your guys come up with to defend Israel.

OK, So we are getting formal.

Occupation only last until treaties are signed, and Turkey signed several treaties handing out
its Middle East territories to France and Great Britain.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres#Fate_of_the_treaty (not ratified)

Treaty of Ankara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These treaties gave the Allies legal right to decide whatever they liked regarding Palestine.
Britain was awarded custody over Palestine by the League of Nations, the predecessor of UN.
Thus the British Mandate can therefore not be considered occupation.

British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In what way was the Khan of Kalat legal?

Only legal basis I recognize for a ruler is an election based on one person, one vote.
If elected, were women allowed to vote?

Jews were not brought. They emigrated, and in a non-racist society, once you are accepted as
an immigrant and receive citizenship, you have all the rights of any other member of the society,
regardless of how long you have lived there.

If mass immigration is allowed like in France, then society will change.
Are you proposing that the large number of Muslims in France and rest of Europe
should be treated as second class citizens, and native French has the right to protest by killing Muslims.
If UN proposes to solve a civil war situation by creating a Muslim State in Southern France,
then that is against all your beliefs.

 

[GURU DUTT]

"If those who deny Israel’s right to exist were morally and logically consistent, they would also deny Pakistan’s right to exist. If it was acceptable to drive over 7 million Hindus and Sikhs from their ancient homelands to achieve Muslim self-determination, then why was it a crime to displace a much smaller number of people to achieve Jewish — and Palestinian —self-determination? ......

 

[GURU DUTT]

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

"If those who deny Israel’s right to exist were morally and logically consistent, they would also deny Pakistan’s right to exist. If it was acceptable to drive over 7 million Hindus and Sikhs from their ancient homelands to achieve Muslim self-determination, then why was it a crime to displace a much smaller number of people to achieve Jewish — and Palestinian —self-determination? ......

The Background of the Partition of India

"There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the maiming and mutilation of victims. The catalogue of horrors includes the disembowelling of pregnant women, the slamming of babies' heads against brick walls, the cutting off of victims limbs and genitalia and the display of heads and corpses. While previous communal riots had been deadly, the scale and level of brutality was unprecedented. Although some scholars question the use of the term 'genocide' with respect to the Partition massacres, much of the violence manifested as having genocidal tendencies. It was designed to cleanse an existing generation as well as prevent its future reproduction."

This is what counts.

 

[Pakistani E]

Why is time against Israel? Every year, the Israeli population grows, the Israeli economy grows, and Israeli facts on the ground grow. Palestinian denial of reality has cost them dearly.

Why are you defining the conflict in terms of wiping out Palestinians or Arabs? That's a non-sequitur.

Time is against Israel because, throughout the centuries, the balance of power has always shifted. Not too long ago, the ottomans ruled the roost in the holy land. Before that the Arabs. There is nothing to say that power might not shift again in favour of the arabs or another force which is anti Israel.

As for wiping each other out, I am just discussing how else can Israel have peace while it refuses to listen to the legitimate demands of the Palestinians. Violence will continue as long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian land. I am not defining this conflict in terms of wiping anyone out, but the reality is, there are people on both sides who want to wipe each other out.

I guess what my previous comment said was basically, 'how does Israel plan on ending this conflict?'

What has the conflict in Israel got to do with the conflict in Syria?

 

[GURU DUTT]

Time is against Israel because, throughout the centuries, the balance of power has always shifted. Not too long ago, the ottomans ruled the roost in the holy land. Before that the Arabs. There is nothing to say that power might not shift again in favour of the arabs or another force which is anti Israel.

As for wiping each other out, I am just discussing how else can Israel have peace while it refuses to listen to the legitimate demands of the Palestinians. Violence will continue as long as Israel continues to occupy Palestinian land. I am not defining this conflict in terms of wiping anyone out, but the reality is, there are people on both sides who want to wipe each other out.

I guess what my previous comment said was basically, 'how does Israel plan on ending this conflict?'



What has the conflict in Israel got to do with the conflict in Syria?

both are backed and instigated by corrupt and coward oil rich sunni muslim arab nations

 

[Areesh]

In what way was the Khan of Kalat legal?

He was the legal ruler of his state. The people accepted his rule and there was no rebellion against his rule.

About the treaties you presented. All the treaties were signed between the colonial powers and defeated Turks. The local arabs had no say in those treaties or agreements which wasn't the case in Khan of kalat accession to Pakistan. As I said. The whole population of kalat state was with its ruler and its decision to join Pakistan. It wasn't a treaty between a foreign power and a party which had been defeated recently in a war.

Jews were not brought. They emigrated, and in a non-racist society, once you are accepted as
an immigrant and receive citizenship, you have all the rights of any other member of the society,
regardless of how long you have lived there.

They were brought. You can call it emigration. I call it importing them from all over the world and imposing on the heads of poor arab peasants. A unique case in the human history.

If mass immigration is allowed like in France, then society will change.

No matter how much mass immigration is allowed, I doubt the immigrants would become the rulers of France and start killings the locals like we see in Israel-Palestine case.

 

[ResurgentIran]

Unfortunately emerging countries like China and Russia are not going to be putting any pressure on Israel, or disengage from it anytime soon.
Israel is a technology superpower and provide a lot of services to these countries. Business is flourishing between them.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

He was the legal ruler of his state. The people accepted his rule and there was no rebellion against his rule.

About the treaties you presented. All the treaties were signed between the colonial powers and defeated Turks. The local arabs had no say in those treaties or agreements which wasn't the case in Khan of kalat accession to Pakistan. As I said. The whole population of kalat state was with its ruler and its decision to join Pakistan. It wasn't a treaty between a foreign power and a party which had been defeated recently in a war.

They were brought. You can call it emigration. I call it importing them from all over the world and imposing on the heads of poor arab peasants. A unique case in the human history.

No matter how much mass immigration is allowed, I doubt the immigrants would become the rulers of France and start killings the locals like we see in Israel-Palestine case.

Your comments are worth nothing, unless you can show proof that his position is not based
on military power of a group of cronies. That he consider himself legal, I have no doubt.
A king is only legal, if he is elected, and legality drops over time.
That his rule was not rebeled against, does not mean that its legal.
An illegal Khan can still be good enough that no rebellion occurs,
but key is if the citizens have been given a choice.
Any decision to join Pakistan would only have validity after a referendum with a qualified majority.
If the whole population was behind, it why:

"Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army had to subdue insurgents based in Kalat who rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan."

"They were brought" implies that some external party did this, which is false.
What happened was that the Jews made a collective decision to move to the land of Israel,
organized themselves and got on with it.
This has happened many times in the history, Helvetii, Vandals, Mongols, Americans.

Whether it is legal or not is based on what laws are in place, and I dare you
to show any laws that were broken by immigration during the Ottoman Era
and early British Mandate.

Whether You think it is fair is a completely different matter.
It is not fair in some peoples opinion, that rich people can buy more than the poor.
That is how the world works.

It is the same situation when a godforsaken little village gets fashionable.
Some locals will sell off, making a profit, and prises will rise so other locals cannot afford
to remain.

If you want a good example of a takeover, just look at Kosovo.
Now ruled by immigrating Albanians.
Istanbul/Konstantinopel is no longer Greek.

 

[Black Mamba1]

U are Hindu right. If jews occupied a hypothetical Hindu country what did u do?

The realistic answer is because we are Muslims and if do not help oppressed Muslims we are not Muslim anymore.

Till Palestine is freed we must help Palestinians.

Anyway I do not accept of all Hamas and Palestinians works.

I am not a supporter of current Israeli mansalaughter. But this "Muslim" feeling is not understandable to me. All the Muslim world are divided into nation states. They fight each other, kill each other . On the other hand they feel angry if some other Muslim who is tortured 1000 KM away not as a human being but as a Muslim.

On a lighter note , it reminds me the last scene of "Men in Black" movie . Will Smith is smashing an insect by his shoe and the alien creature ( which belongs to an insect family too) feels the pain. The alien came back to take a revenge for killing of the fellow insects and got killed himself instead.

The cruel events happening in ME or Gaza are political and economical events. A Pakistani should be bothered only if he is getting impacted. Pakistan should take adequate measure to protect itself from adverse impact of these extraordinary events as a independent nation state but not as a Muslim nation or a Sunni/Shia nation.

 

[Pakistani E]

both are backed and instigated by corrupt and coward oil rich sunni muslim arab nations

Yes, but one has the backing of the moral policeman of the world, the US, and the other is considered a terrorist state by the same moral policeman.

 

[Fukuoka]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=784434688235950

Fake

Zionist Al Qaeda attack Syria from Israel, Jordania, Saudi, Turkey full of USA bases
Zionist Al Qaeda kill egyptians to protect the JEWS borders