Hagel Proposed 60,000 Man/10 Year US Occupation of Jerusalem and West Bank

Hagel wasn’t the only proponent of this insane plan, but he was part of it and the rest of the participants aren’t being nominated for Secretary of Defense.

The plan would have required an occupation of parts of Israel on an unknown scale. One NATO researcher estimated that we might be talking about a 10-15 year occupation by 60,000 troops at a cost of 160 billion dollars. And that may not be all of it.

The report seemed to hint at an internationalization of Jerusalem, a longtime obsession for some of the Anti-Israel crowd, complete with special airspace regulations.

One of the craziest aspects of this report is that this was being proposed in 2009, at a time when the United States had commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even crazier, this international force would feature large numbers of Muslim troops under NATO leadership inside Israel.

The proposal begins with a call for Obama to impose his own solution on both sides, which just happens to be their solution, backed by security guarantees maintained by international troops. This looks a lot like an invasion and occupation.

Jerusalem is carved up. There is some sort of partial right of return. And the whole thing is maintained by a Frankenstein monster of a UN/NATO/Regional peacekeeping coalition. And the worst is still to come.

The proposal includes a deal with Assad and Hamas. “In brief, shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might help clarify the movement’s views and test its behavior.”

Obama is expected to battle a Zionist conspiracy in the United States. “There are Jewish-American and Christian Zionist groups that feel comfortable amplifying the positions of Israeli politicians hostile to hard compromise and painful concession.  At times the administration may take positions coordinated with an Israeli Prime Minister who may nevertheless feel unable, for domestic political reasons, to acknowledge his or her complicity. ”

The report proposes having the Muslim Palestinian Authority administering Christian holy places in Jerusalem. The Christian exodus from Bethlehem should be ample reminder of how that will eventually work out.

What implementing it in practice would mean is that the United States would find itself in another Iraq at best and in the middle of a regional war at worst. Putting Muslim armies inside Israel would be a disaster. The Island of Peace massacre is a reminder of what happens when even professional Muslim armies are within sight of Jewish civilians. A series of terrorist attacks would quickly set both sides against each other, forcing the United States to deploy more troops to stop the violence.

This isn’t a peace plan. It’s a plan for a war.

The United States would find itself trading places with Israel, on the front lines of a new terrorist war. It would be about the worst move possible. And the fact that Hagel signed on the dotted line raises serious questions about his judgement.

  • JacksonPearson

    Hagel's a f^%*ing moron….
    We have no business whatsoever to occupy Israel, or to internationalize Jerusalem. Fact is, we need to get our nose out from under the Middle East tent.

    Why?…Because this nation had better sh*t-can our Constitution, and pledge instead to the unholy Qur'an. Because that's exactly the evil role the United States and/or the United Nations/NATO would be taking. Jerusalem has always been the capital of the Jewish nation, and will still be in the very end.

    Perhaps if Hagel wants to stir up some real crap, than how about occupying Mecca, and register all of the terrorists that yearly come through the Hajj? No you say, why not?

  • http://iranaware..com/ IranAware

    This entire administration is going to have to be removed by force in a year or so..

    • Clara S

      Why the time frame of a year or so????? Why is everyone in Washington just sitting on their hands and watching ObamaNation take over???? I think that the Second Amendment push from BO is going to backfire and we'll see a big push back…….at this rate, do you really think it will be in a year or so? In spite of my feelings about the treason that is masquerading as the United States Government, I am not looking forward to the inevitable chaos.

  • YS770

    This sounds like something out of a fantasy novel. It is absurd and completely unworkable, not even meant to be taken seriously.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

    Why does McCain think this nominee even deserves a vote on the senate floor?

    He's just as out of touch with reality as Hagel if he thinks this man should be allowed any power in any administration. The fact Obama stands behind the nomination shows just how strong the muslim heritage is for this president.

    • patriothere

      Hagel is a war veteran who served his country and received 2 purple hearts. Not to mention he is a successful businessman and Senator. What have you done for your country?

      • JacksonPearson

        HAGEL'S A POS. And;
        You ain't no patriot, but more like pond scum, or Middle East outhouse droppings!
        Recall: http://i44.tinypic.com/e9vos3.jpg

      • RonL

        Until 1778, Benedict Arnold was one of our best generals. Had he died and not merely lost a leg turning a defeat at Saratoga into a monumental victory, Arnold would have been one of our greatest heros. Cities, counties, schools, ships all would have been named after him.

        Heroic service in the past means nothing if undone by current behaviour.

      • Drakken

        Hmm let's see, I served this country for 24 years, what have you done?

    • JacksonPearson

      "Why does McCain think this nominee even deserves a vote on the senate floor?"
      Because RINO'S love other RINOS.

  • Ar'nun

    "Even crazier, this international force would feature large numbers of Muslim troops under NATO leadership inside Israel."

    Yeah sure, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? Sheesh!

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com adinakutnicki

    The very fact that Obama nominated Hagel and Brennan, both of whom want Israel dismantled, tells us all we need to know about Barack HUSSEIN Obama. It is not a question of this or that policy difference, but it is a question of Islamic leanings and a visceral hatred towards the twin pillars of western civilization – America & Israel.

    People have a hard time believing that their leadership do not have the best interests of their nation at the fore. It is what it is – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/11/john-brennan-

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Trevor

    It would be much easier just to stop the $3 billion a year in aid until Israel removes all illegal settlements.

    • Ar'nun

      There are no illegal settlements.

      • patriothere

        Yes there are. israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions.

        • JacksonPearson

          Recall this one dunce: http://i42.tinypic.com/allqv6.jpg

          Roger has owned your worthless Dhimmi butt, and always will!

        • Larry S

          What resolutions? How is it in violation??

          • JacksonPearson

            PatriotNot, is an antisemitic, cyber, drive-by-shooter.

        • Larry S

          What resolutions? How is Israel in violation?

        • Lan Astaslem

          Only Jew hating trolls like you SINGLE OUT the one Jewish state for demonization – you've been outed for the troll you are.

          • Andy Lewis

            Unfortunately the UN itself is packed with similar trolls.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Yes there are. israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions."

          So am I every time I "slander" Islam by refuting lies with facts. So what? You're an Islamic supremacist? That's who you're patriotic to?

          Noted.

        • Drakken

          Your effing muslim friends of the PLO have never honored anything they have signed dumbazz, so get bent.

    • Mary Sue

      International Law is a joke and nobody voted for it. It is undemocratic.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "International Law is a joke and nobody voted for it. It is undemocratic."

        As used today, most often its an attempt to cloak tyranny with respectable phraseology.

        • Drakken

          Last time I checked, I am a citizen of a sovereign country under our Constitution, not a world citizen under international so called law. Period!

          • ziontruth

            Megadittoes, Drakken! International law is the root of World Government; any nation that wishes to remain free must oppose it.

    • JacksonPearson

      Now why would you want to do a dumb thing like that? Perhaps you mean remove ALL illegal Arab squatters, and send them back to Trans-Jordan…right?

      "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.”

      Great Britain [i.e., the Mandatory or Trustee] did turn over its responsibility to the United Nations as of May 14, 1948. However, the legal force of the League of Nations’ “Mandate for Palestine” [i.e., The Trust] was not terminated with the end of the British Mandate. Rather, the Trust was transferred over to the United Nations."

      • Trevor

        Under the terms of the mandate Jews who moved to PALESTINE had to take up PALESTINIAN citizenship. It's right there in article 7. There was to be no Jewish state neither were Jews granted sovereignty or made the beneficiaries. Glad to clear that up.

        • JacksonPearson

          Wrong, I'm glad to clear you up, here's a map:
          http://i50.tinypic.com/9pnghe.jpg

          Read and weep!

        • JacksonPearson

          Oh BTW, for your historical reading pleasure:
          Arabs, the UN and its organs, and lately the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well, have repeatedly claimed that the Palestinians are a native people – so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word Palestine is not even Arabic.

          In a report by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State, it is the name of a geographical area.

          Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE from the name of a seagoing Aegean people who settled on the coast of Canaan in antiquity – the Philistines. The name was chosen to replace Judea, as a sign that Jewish sovereignty had been eradicated following the Jewish Revolts against Rome.

          In the course of time, the Latin name Philistia was further *******ized into Palistina or Palestine. During the next 2,000 years Palestine was never an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people distinct from other Arabs appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. During that rule, local Arabs were actually considered part of, and subject to, the authority of Greater Syria ( Suriyya al-Kubra).

          Historically, before the Arabs fabricated the concept of Palestinian peoplehood as an exclusively Arab phenomenon, no such group existed. This is substantiated in countless official British Mandate-vintage documents that speak of the Jews and the Arabs of Palestine – not Jews and Palestinians.

          In fact, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (when the name “Israel” was chosen for the newly-established Jewish State), the term “Palestine” applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before the state’s independence.

          • Trevor

            1. It's illegal to take land through war. Besides that, in 67 it was Israel who attacked Egypt.

            2.When the LoN was 'dissolved' the UN did not automatically take over the mandate for Palestine. This is documented.

            3.The mandate only allowed for Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jews who immigrated and wished to live in Palestine on a permanent basis had to take up Palestinian citizenship. Under the Lon mandate there was to be no Jewish state only Jewish immigration to Palestine.

            4.The term Palestine has been in use since 5 B.C. This is documented. Besides that, your argument is weak and is akin to the French saying that England never existed because there is no such word as 'Angleterre' in the English language.

            5. The mandate clearly refers to Palestine as being a 'Country'

            6.Is there anything else you'd like me to correct you on?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "1. It's illegal to take land through war."

            Not always. And whose laws are you speaking about?

            "Besides that, in 67 it was Israel who attacked Egypt."

            In legitimate self-defense after their shipping was blocked and the UN peacekeeping troops were removed, violating the peace treating arrived at to end the Suez Conflict. Not to mention threats broadcast in Hebrew threatening eminent annihilation.

            Don't let any of the facts disrupt your delusion.

            "2.When the LoN was 'dissolved' the UN did not automatically take over the mandate for Palestine. This is documented. "

            Who then was sovereign smart azz?

            "3.The mandate only allowed for Jewish immigration to Palestine and Jews who immigrated and wished to live in Palestine on a permanent basis had to take up Palestinian citizenship. Under the Lon mandate there was to be no Jewish state only Jewish immigration to Palestine. "

            Actions after the Mandate was accepted were justified by persistent acts of Islamic supremacist violent aggression and perfidy.

            "4.The term Palestine has been in use since 5 B.C. This is documented."

            Documented where? Referring to who? Islamic "Palestinians?" Did you know that according to some "Palestinians" that "half of the apostles were probably Palestinian" and others even claim Jesus as a Muslim Palestinian "freedom fighter" fighting "against the Jews" and deny he was even Jewish. There is a total war going on to implement sharia in the region and eventually in the world. How do you justify arguing for acceptance of their lies as though their claims are legitimate?

            "Besides that, your argument is weak and is akin to the French saying that England never existed because there is no such word as 'Angleterre' in the English language."

            No, that is not the point. You misunderstand on trivial and salient points. The salient point is that Islamic supremacists lie about it and the actual facts refute the claims they make to build their case for justice. It's not to say that ipso facto they have no right. Their justifications are entirely based on lies. There was no national movement, no sovereign, nothing.

            This is about sovereignty. They didn't even try and to this day the PA is just a front. They want to destroy Jewish sovereignty and establish sharia law, which is in conflict with the US constitution for starters.

            "5. The mandate clearly refers to Palestine as being a 'Country' "

            What is the significance of this statement?

            "6.Is there anything else you'd like me to correct you on?"

            Keep dreaming.

          • Trevor

            1. Yes, always. S/RES/242; "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …."

            2.“The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system”.
            US Ambassador Warren Austin citing General Assembly Resolution 24.

            3."Actions after the Mandate was accepted were justified by persistent acts of Islamic supremacist violent aggression and perfidy."

            That's irrelevant to the topic at hand…unless of course you'd like to elaborate and connect some of the dots?

            4."Documented where? Referring to who? Islamic "Palestinians?"

            I think i'm going to stop here. You do know that there was no Islam in 5 B.C?

            5."What is the significance of this statement?"

            It's significant in response to one of JacksonPearson's claims. Maybe you should go and re-read the comments.

            Btw, please don't try and muddy the waters by talking about sharia law or Islamic supremacists or the U.S constitution etc.

            That would be grand.

            Thanks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "1. Yes, always. S/RES/242; "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …."

            The UN is a political institution. You're easily impressed by politicians. And any sovereign can take territory in its legitimate defense.

            "2.“The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system”.
            US Ambassador Warren Austin citing General Assembly Resolution 24. "

            You failed to answer my question.

            >3."Actions after the Mandate was accepted were justified by persistent acts of Islamic supremacist violent aggression and perfidy."

            "That's irrelevant to the topic at hand…unless of course you'd like to elaborate and connect some of the dots?"

            What is the topic at hand? You seem to be trying to paint Israel is illegitimate and its actions as that of a usurper. Of course it's relevant, though inconvenient to your argument.

            "I think i'm going to stop here. You do know that there was no Islam in 5 B.C?"

            You seem to be waking up to some of the facts. Keep drinking that coffee.

            "It's significant in response to one of JacksonPearson's claims. Maybe you should go and re-read the comments."

            The question is why do you think it's significant? You must think it's salient regardless of what anyone else says and I'm asking you.

            "Btw, please don't try and muddy the waters by talking about sharia law or Islamic supremacists or the U.S constitution etc. "

            Only when relevant. If those topics confuse you, you're in the wrong place.

          • Trevor

            "The UN is a political institution. You're easily impressed by politicians"

            The law is the law. You might not agree with it but still…and no, politicians don't impress me since they seem impotent when it comes to implementing international law.

            "You failed to answer my question".

            I can already tell that you're an odious individual. See you were trying to be a "smart azz" with your question and no doubt you are also one of those Hasbarists who assumed that the UN automatically took over the mandate. Now if you really want an answer then why don't you go and read the actual mandate where you will find your answer…..Capiche!?!

            "What is the topic at hand? You seem to be trying to paint Israel is illegitimate and its actions as that of a usurper. Of course it's relevant, though inconvenient to your argument."

            Erm, no. I'm not trying to paint Israel as illigitimate,although those who want to claim the mandate do ;). I'm saying that the illegal settlements are illigitimate. Of course you can't give an answer to support the legality of said settlements therefore you try and pull the old Hasbara chestnut of "omg why are saying Israel is illigitimate"

            "You seem to be waking up to some of the facts. Keep drinking that coffee".

            Erm, again, no. I already knew the facts and at no time did i mention Islam.

            "The question is why do you think it's significant? You must think it's salient regardless of what anyone else says and I'm asking you."

            Again, it was relevant to a point made by JP. So why don't go read his comment again and then take into account the the mandate for Palestine was a 'class A mandate' then work it out for yourself…or maybe you can't because you're not as clever as you think.

            "Only when relevant. If those topics confuse you, you're in the wrong place."

            No, silly comments that try to muddy the waters [an old Hasbara trick] are in the wrong place.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The law is the law."

            Nope. Not without context. Only then can we test your statement. Some "laws" are not enforceable and no laws can be universally applied throughout the globe. None. Get it now?

            "You might not agree with it but still"

            I'm not merely disagreeing. I'm stating the facts while you're stating your wishes that certain UN statements are accepted as universal law.

            "…and no, politicians don't impress me since they seem impotent when it comes to implementing international law."

            They impress you enough so that you defer to the UN. Who do you think renders those opinions? They're all politicians under the control of other politicians. What are the 3 branches of government in the UN? What is the appellate process in the UN?

            "See you were trying to be a "smart azz" with your question and no doubt you are also one of those Hasbarists who assumed that the UN automatically took over the mandate."

            Wrong again. Let's see if you can provide a straight answer.

            "Now if you really want an answer then why don't you go and read the actual mandate where you will find your answer…..Capiche!?!"

            You're the one that presented this as a salient question. If you want to withdraw your point I'm fine with that.

            "Erm, no. I'm not trying to paint Israel as illigitimate,although those who want to claim the mandate do ;). I'm saying that the illegal settlements are illigitimate. Of course you can't give an answer to support the legality of said settlements therefore you try and pull the old Hasbara chestnut of "omg why are saying Israel is illigitimate"

            I already told you. Israel is the sole legitimate sovereign. What else does it need to do to be "legal?" The fact that they held out hope to exchange the land for "peace" with totalitarians was a political mistake. That doesn't undo their sovereignty. You can't say that they're illegal if there's no other contender for sovereignty. Yet that doesn't stop you. The only way of getting around this is to claim they're "illegal" because of UN suggestions. We can accurately describe this accurately as a campaign to delegitimize Israel regardless of your own phraseology. Your theory is otherwise incomplete, If the settlements are illegal, who is the victim? The UN? The complainant is the OIC using the UN politically for religious objectives.

            "Erm, again, no. I already knew the facts and at no time did i mention Islam."

            Exactly. Proof you don't know the facts.

            "Again, it was relevant to a point made by JP."

            Fine. You win that point against JP. You're so awesome, but it's not worth my time chasing down every red herring you try to come up with.

            "No, silly comments that try to muddy the waters [an old Hasbara trick] are in the wrong place."

            It's silly to worry about Islamic supremacism in your world. Noted.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You forgot a few of your clever rebuttals

            >>You wrote: "Besides that, in 67 it was Israel who attacked Egypt."

            > and I replied: In legitimate self-defense after their shipping was blocked and the UN peacekeeping troops were removed, violating the peace treating arrived at to end the Suez Conflict. Not to mention threats broadcast in Hebrew threatening eminent annihilation.

            You said………

            You actually have no legitimate answers. You only have questions and statements you hope will silence people. You have no coherent way to attack Israel as a legitimate sovereign because you only have fragmented, incomplete arguments that fall apart when the entire set of facts is examined coherently. Muslims and Leftists HATE that. So do neo-Nazis.

          • Trevor

            "and I replied: In legitimate self-defense after their shipping was blocked and the UN peacekeeping troops were removed, violating the peace treating arrived at to end the Suez Conflict. Not to mention threats broadcast in Hebrew threatening eminent annihilation.

            Tell you what. You explain why it was legitimate "self -defense after their shipping was blocked and the UN peacekeeping troops were removed, violating the peace treating arrived at to end the Suez Conflict." and then i'll reply. Of course you're going to have to contradict yourself to do so….aren't you!?!

            "You actually have no legitimate answers. You only have questions and statements you hope will silence people. You have no coherent way to attack Israel as a legitimate sovereign because you only have fragmented, incomplete arguments that fall apart when the entire set of facts is examined coherently. Muslims and Leftists HATE that. So do neo-Nazis."

            Again, i'm not "attacking Israel as a legitimate sovereign" this is just a poor attempt by you to conceal your ignorance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Tell you what. You explain why it was legitimate "self -defense after their shipping was blocked and the UN peacekeeping troops were removed, violating the peace treating arrived at to end the Suez Conflict."

            Casus belli. I described the casus belli, which is the justification for war.

            If someone puts a gun in your face, and you take the time to slip your hand in your pocket with your own gun, and you shoot first, it's still self defense if you can show reasonable fear the gun would have been used against you. It's not hard to understand.

            The only reason anyone even tries to say that Israel started the war is because their first blow was so decisive. People who look only superficially smell another "Jewish conspiracy." Then it just became part of folklore. That's what you're in to: Folklore and repeating lies of Jew-haters.

            "Again, i'm not "attacking Israel as a legitimate sovereign" this is just a poor attempt by you to conceal your ignorance."

            Saying that settlements in the West Bank or Jerusalem are "illegal" is attacking Israeli sovereignty. I'm revealing your ignorance when you quote "international law" and talk about your theories behind your emotionally-derived opinions.

            Are you supposed to be a citizen of the world or are you afraid to state your citizenship status?

          • ziontruth

            "It's illegal to take land through war."

            All Arabs from Morocco to Iraq are to go back to the Arabian Peninsula, then? Or will you pull the usual convenient grandfather clause, saying it only applies to cases since 1945?

            "The term Palestine has been in use since 5 B.C. This is documented."

            As a geographic term only. The term "Palestinian [nation]," when used at all before the 1920s, applied only to the Jewish nation. This is documented: For instance, Immanuel Kant in the 18th century wrote of "the Palestinians among us" when referring to the Jews of Germany.

            The maliciously falsified use of the term "Palestinian" to refer to the local Arab colonists on the Land of Israel wishing to legitimize their robbery of Jewish land dates from after 1949, when Arab propagandists devised their strategy of demonization, later aided and abetted by the Soviet Union. As for "Palestinian Arabs," they only became an idea at all after the British and the French split Greater Syria among themselves; before that, they had been Syrians with no distinction from those to their north. Only the Jews saw the Land of Israel a.k.a. Palestine as something distinct, being their ancestral land.

            Is there anything else you'd like me to correct you on?

          • Trevor

            ziontruth, that's a bit of a contradiction, no?

            "All Arabs from Morocco to Iraq are to go back to the Arabian Peninsula, then? Or will you pull the usual convenient grandfather clause, saying it only applies to cases since 1945?"

            Ah i see, we have to debate according to your guidelines. Anyways i was gonna say 67 but whatever.

            firstly i have to say that at no time did i mention Arab or Jew in reference to Palestine being in use since 5 B.C

            The original claim,

            "Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE"

            I replied to that by saying 'The term Palestine has been in use since 5 B.C. This is documented'.

            So to sum up. At no time did i mention Arab Or Jew nor did i mention in that point that Palestine was a country or otherwise.

            "Is there anything else you'd like me to correct you on?"

            You would have to correct me in the first place to correct me on "anything else" since you seem to agree with me that the term Palestine was in use before 135 CE

            Nice little rant you had there though. Kudos!

            Thanks.

          • ziontruth

            Great, so if the non-Jewish "Palestinian" nation is a recent innovation, then it follows that their claim should take quite the back seat to the one of a nation that's about three millennia old. That means you get off your "illegal Israeli settlements" high horse, understood?

            Nobody has the right to tell the Jews where and in what number they can inhabit their own land, the Land of Israel.

          • Trevor

            Erm, the settlements are illegal under law….No high horse needed.

            "Nobody has the right to tell the Jews where and in what number they can inhabit their own land, the Land of Israel."

            Since when? This link here goes some way to disputing your preposterous outburst.
            http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4339595

            Are you a Khazar?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Erm, the settlements are illegal under law….No high horse needed."

            Not under any laws that matter outside of politics. There is no universal law that rules the globe psycho.

            Get stuffed blowhard.

          • Trevor

            lol the poor little Hasbarist is getting frustrated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "getting frustrated"

            Sure. But how did you drift from the point that there is no universal law that rules the globe?

            Therefore you STILL lose. You get still get stuffed if you want and you're still a blowhard. I don't need to be frustrated to make those notes. You're also a neo-Nazi Muslim ally, if not a Muslim yourself. You want to attack Western law and advance sharia cloaked in bogus "international law" and the subjective opinions of the OIC-ruled UN.

            If won't work here.

            I repeat:

            "Erm, the settlements are illegal under law….No high horse needed."

            Not under any laws that matter outside of politics. There is no universal law that rules the globe psycho.

            Get stuffed blowhard. Try to address your arguments if you can.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Are you a Khazar?"

            Nazi Muslim alert.

          • Trevor

            "Nazi Muslim alert."

            lol that's the final attempt by a loser to conceal their ignorance.

            Thank you!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "that's the final attempt by a loser to conceal their ignorance."

            Deny it. You're promoting Nazi Muslim ideology in every comment you make. Deny it. Where are you a citizen?

            Denounce Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini. If you don't even know your own ideological ancestors while I do, that's not evidence that I'm the ignorant one in the conversation.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You can't bring yourself to denounce Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini. Busted. I guess they were just misunderstood souls who knew what a problem those Zionists were.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            >"Palestine is a name coined by the Romans around 135 CE"

            "I replied to that by saying 'The term Palestine has been in use since 5 B.C. This is documented'."

            Palestine in reference to the lands of Israel was coined in the first century AD. I assume if you make reference to older etymology that you must be referring to the Philistines. The Philistines inspired the name, but it was coined by the Romans to refer to Israel, in the second century AD as far as I know. This was in response to a rebellion and went along with a massive dispersion and enslavement of Jewish residents and rebels / freedom fighters.

            But really in the context of these discussions, and as has been explained to you and many other people at many other times, the point is that the "Palestinian" political movement today conflates all historical references to "Palestine" as referring to their Arab Islamic ancestors. This is a blatant lie. They do this in part to remove the Jews from being "native" to the land. They try to steal the history as "true Jews" who are all Islamic according to their ideology.

            Asking me elsewhere whether I know that Islam was invented in the 7th century by Mohammed is not relevant to what Muslims claim. The topic: Islamic lies and other deceptions. You seem to be trying to skate on the edge that defines the distinctions between liars and deceivers. You're clearly in the deceiver camp, that's undeniable.

          • Trevor

            Erm you seem to be obsessed by Muslims and Islam. No doubt you have an irrational fear of them too.

            The Romans never coined the name Palestine and besides that the Romans allegedly gave the name "Palestina" to the area not Palestine and the name and its derivatives were in use centuries before 135 CE…So no, the Romans never coined the name. Glad to clear that up for you.

            "But really in the context of these discussions, and as has been explained to you and many other people at many other times, the point is that the "Palestinian" political movement today conflates all historical references to "Palestine" as referring to their Arab Islamic ancestors."

            That's grand but at no time have i mentioned any "Palestinian political movement". I'm simply pointing out that only the ignorant or stupid would claim that it was the Romans who coined the name "Palestine".

            The fact is, you can't handle that so you try and muddy up the waters and then divert the convo into something other than the points that show up your Israeli PR.

            To paraphrase the famous 'Buggles' song,

            I'nternet killed Israeli PR'

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Erm you seem to be obsessed by Muslims and Islam. No doubt you have an irrational fear of them too. "

            Yes, it's called "Islam-o-phobia." I have it alright.

            "The Romans never coined the name Palestine and besides that the Romans allegedly gave the name "Palestina" to the area"

            They coined the name Syria Palæstina that we now refer to in the English language as Palestine. We're speaking English here.

            "..not Palestine"

            That's an important distinction to you?

            "and the name and its derivatives were in use centuries before 135 CE…So no, the Romans never coined the name."

            They coined the name that the Islamic supremacists claim refers to early Muslims, which it does not. Can you understand this point? Any more red herrings in the form of trivial distinctions about etymology? The Romans renamed Judea and the region to refer to the enemies of the Jews. Islamic supremacists claim these were Muslims. They bundle these lies with many other lies. Those are the salient points in this discussion.

            "That's grand but at no time have i mentioned any "Palestinian political movement".

            You're arguing with all of their lies and deceptions, so you are a part of that movement.

            "I'm simply pointing out that only the ignorant or stupid would claim that it was the Romans who coined the name "Palestine"."

            The claim is accurate. The Romans dispersed the Jews and renamed the territory "Provincia Syria Palaestina.” This had nothing to do with Islamic supremacist Arabs who claim they are the original ancestors of Palestine, regardless of what ethnic language they use. The territory was never known by that name before, and no other territory had been known by that name.

            "The fact is, you can't handle that so you try and muddy up the waters and then divert the convo into something other than the points that show up your Israeli PR."

            All of my information comes from authenticated historical accounts. Some are Israeli, most are not. If writing one's analysis is also PR, then I guess that's OK.

            As far as me trying to "muddy the waters," I'm happy to allow any reader to arrive at their own conclusions about any conversations here.

          • Trevor

            You sure do type a lot without actually having anything to say, and to be frank, you bore me to tears.

            "All of my information comes from authenticated historical accounts".

            Yea, Zionist mythology doesn't count as "authenticated"

            I'll skip past the parts where you try and muddy the waters by bringing up mythical Sharia in the West, militant Islam so on and so forth.

            I mentioned S/RES/242; "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …." because that is relevant to the occupation. However, there is much, much more i could mention but all i will say is that International law is binding on every nation…hence the name, International law.

            Putting that aside, you obviously don't understand what gives Israel its legitimacy. If you did, you'd understand why the settlements are illegal. However, if you keep claiming Israel has "Sovereignty" [i note you offer no evidence of this] over the West Bank and East Jerusalem then you must also agree with the people who say that "Israel is an apartheid state"

            The Romans, well as already stated the Romans never coined or invented the name Palestine…So as we can see you've lied out your teeth. No doubt you lied for a "noble cause" ie. you think in your closed right wing, Islamophobic, bigoted mind that you're some kinda white knight coming to the aid of fellow hasbarists who have not yet reached your level…But it doesn't make you any less of a liar.

            Also, you still haven't explained why Egypt declared war. All you've done is produce a mythical gun and ran your mouth off with some nonsense….Why is that?

            If you're going to reply, please leave out your irrational fears of Sharia etc…Mkay!?!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "However, if you keep claiming Israel has "Sovereignty" [i note you offer no evidence of this]"

            I didn't realize how poorly you understood law and governance. You don't even know what sovereignty is.

            To be "illegal" means to be breaking a law. To create and enforce laws, one needs sovereignty. Get it?

            sov·er·eign·ty noun \-tē\\ˈsä-v(ə-)rən-tē, -vərn-tē also ˈsə-\
            1) obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
            2) a : supreme power especially over a body politic
            b : freedom from external control : autonomy

            I've never actually heard anyone argue that Israel is not a sovereign nation. There is no competing sovereign for the territories you allude to. So the burden of proof is on you. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand sovereignty.

            "The Romans, well as already stated the Romans never coined or invented the name Palestine"

            I've already articulated the explanation for your feigned misunderstanding. Or you could be that dim.

            "Also, you still haven't explained why Egypt declared war."

            Nobody asked. I'm not a mind-reader.

            "All you've done is produce a mythical gun and ran your mouth off with some nonsense….Why is that?"

            Don't blame your confusion on me.

            "If you're going to reply, please leave out your irrational fears of Sharia etc…Mkay!?!"

            Islam is a religion of peace. Mkay? Everyone knows this, don't they young child?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I mentioned S/RES/242; "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war …." because that is relevant to the occupation. However, there is much, much more i could mention but all i will say is that International law is binding on every nation…hence the name, International law."

            LOL! It is binding on none. Zero. You haven't a clue. International law is purely theoretical and NON-binding unless a treaty says otherwise and even then there is no international law to enforce the treaties. So therefore NO international law is ever binding in the end. It's up to the sovereigns and their own interests.

            What a more-on. Why don't you explain the questions I asked about the appellate process or enforcement of "binding" international law?

            You're a bluffer or a fool.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If you're going to reply, please leave out your irrational fears of Sharia etc…Mkay!?!"

            Whoever told you that you were the moderator was playing a joke on you and you fell for it. It seems like the one with the irrational fear is you. You're afraid to discuss Islam (or any of your ideological predecessors). It's fundamental to understanding all of the politics in the Middle East and elsewhere you find its adherents. It's a totalitarian religion whether you like to admit that or not.

            Either you're afraid to criticize your allies, you're afraid of allah or you're simply afraid of losing the arguments more thoroughly.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Yea, Zionist mythology doesn't count as "authenticated"

            I guess you don't know what authenticated means. Using references so that one can authenticate the claims made.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I'll skip past the parts where you try and muddy the waters by bringing up mythical Sharia in the West, militant Islam so on and so forth."

            Yes. This surprises nobody.

          • Trevor

            Re Sovereignty. What i want is for you to explain what this is in regards to the WB and East Jerusalem. See i'm one of those people who is undecided on whether Israel is an Apartheid state or not and i'm pretty sure i can come to a conclusion based on your explanation. I would thank you in advance but i'm guessing you can't or wont give an honest answer.

            Re "Authentic". Declare your "Authentic Historical Accounts"?

            "You can't bring yourself to denounce Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini. Busted. I guess they were just misunderstood souls who knew what a problem those Zionists were".

            Your question has no relevance in the context of this "conversation". See, if i was, for example, on here waxing lyrical about Yair and his terrorist gang of wannabe nazi collaborators then your question would at least be semi relevant…but i'm not and i'm equally not playing your silly Hasbara game.

    • Trevor

      Sorry did i miss the part where Israel legally annexed the WB and East Jerusalem?

      • JacksonPearson

        The part you missed was, Israel won lands in Arab attacked wars. Nothing is owing, and to the victor go the spoils. Do you honestly believe if the Arabs had won, they'd return lands back to Israel??? Suuuure, in a genocidal sort of way…right?

      • PAthena

        The so-called "West Bank" is the historic origin of the Jews, it is Judea and Samaria. All of Jerusalem, East and West, has been the capital of the land of the Jews since King David conquered it 3000 years ago.

    • ziontruth

      "…until Israel removes all illegal settlements."

      Yes, I really hope the Jewish State removes all the illegal Arab settlements on the Land of Israel soon. There can be no peace otherwise.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yes, I really hope the Jewish State removes all the illegal Arab settlements on the Land of Israel soon. There can be no peace otherwise."

        This is a good point.

  • UCSPanther

    The IDF is not like Serbia: They are technologically advanced and have some very committed soldiers who take the oath of "Never Again" very seriously.

    Obama would be a major fool to declare war on Israel like Hagel and other antisemitic malcontents want him to.

    • Drakken

      Met quite a few Serbs and Croats that would argue with that my friend. They are without a doubt pretty damn tough and equal man for man with anyone in the IDF.

    • ziontruth

      "The IDF is not like Serbia"

      I wouldn't say it's about the IDF. It would be more accurate to point out that Israel has something Serbia in the 1990s didn't have, and which could make any superpower under errant leadership think twice before sending an army to bring the Jewish State down.

  • alphakilosingh

    Are we supposed to believe it?

  • Jorge Reyes

    The Obama administration is really out of their minds.

  • A.H.Crystall

    Nice lies, very nice lies, tomorrow you will report, that the EU plans an invasion and prepares thousands of warships to destroy every church in the USA …