# Civilians vs Combatents



## Coyote (Jun 6, 2016)

*MOD EDIT: *
*This thread is an offshoot of another thread that generated some good discussion.*
*I'm moving some relevant posts to this thread.*

There's considerable argument in IP conflict particularly, as to what constitutes a civilian vs a combatent.





Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better.  There is no excuse for targeting children.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I never said there was. 

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.  

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children. 

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



What matters in my mind...is intent.  If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky.  IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.  Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck?  Is it the Israeli's?  Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 So what about Zionist Britain or Zionist America then, or don't they count ?

 See how your use of the term alters its context and turns it into hate speech, well known in the UK now and is seen as RACIST HATERED AND HATE SPEECH.


Not that long ago many of the population of Zionist Britain and Zionist America were reservists does this mean that we are not civilians.

 The Geneva conventions spells it out as those people not in uniform, not carrying arms and not engaged in military actions as being civilians. So how are the IDF using their fellow Israeli's as human shields, do they erect illegal weapons launchers in civilian areas with lots of children. Of course you wont waste your time as it will show that you hate the Jews so much that you want any excuse to wipe them out.


 Only your word that they are in gaza and the Golan heights, the troops are too relaxed for it to be a war zone.



 Now get back on topic as the thread is dealing with Barghouti and his attempt at taking control


----------



## Challenger (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?






Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity. 
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Have a look on google maps at gaza and see just how much is open land with no civilians, then ask why they prefer to use schools, hospitals, mosques and civilian housing areas to engage in acts of war. If this ever came to court the Palestinians would be facing charges of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide on their own people. I wonder if Barghouti would withdraw the complaint if it looked like his own people would face charges of war crimes ?



 Hamas of course as they tell the terrorists were to fire from, and then force the civilians to stay put. It is a matter of public domain


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...








 They already have and missed. but you miss the point that this is not in the muddle of a war zone and is not being used to fire illegal weapons. How many people in that building are civilian workers and so are not valid military targets, unless you want to twist the rules


----------



## ogibillm (Jun 6, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


haven't you claimed the former homes of palestinian terrorists are military targets?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Which means that all Palestinians are potential murderers of children and have no legal standing. Or to put it in American it is open season on Palestinians to make Israeli children safe ! ! ! !


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

Freeman said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman,  et al,
> ...






Not according to international law that takes precedence over a UN recommendation any day


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 6, 2016)

Freeman said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Freeman said:
> ...







 Then it is time the Palestinians packed their bags and went isn't it, that way they would not get killed all the time


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.​
Excellent point.     

It is Israel's war zone and Israel has military control of the territory. It is Israel who allows/encourages illegal settlers to have their families live in their war zone. And don't forget that illegal settlers are not "protected persons" (usually called civilians) as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Palestinians are protected persons because they have the right to live in Palestine.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



What a vile ideology!  This coming from someone who personally invaded Vietnam!


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 6, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

I agree with you...  ...   ....

Yeah, "intent" is a BIG aspect in most major crimes and issues of this nature.  You have to examine questions of venue _(the location of the event)_ and the jurisdiction _(official authority over discretionary decisions and judgments --- and )_ on a case-by-case or individual level. 

Similarly, proper identification of parties _(friend or foe) (civilians or combatants)_ are not as simple as these picture make them out to be.  From these picture, you can "GUESS" that they are Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel _(on rapid recall or rapid response)_; but that is by no means the only possible answer.  And you can tell by the other civilians that the picture is not of an event of something unusual.  The civilian population in the immediate surrounding area does not appear to pose any threat.  While it might be assumed that this picture these pictures were taken on an Israeli beach; not unlike the beach where Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff, was among 38 people shot to death by PLO terrorists on an Israeli beach.  It is not unusual for these Palestinian terrorist target areas to receive augmented armed protection.



Coyote said:


> What matters in my mind...is intent.  If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscriminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?
> 
> As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky.  IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there.  Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck?  Is it the Israeli's?  Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?


*(REFERENCES)*

*Protocol i --- Article 50 [ Link ]* -- Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) [ Link ] of the Third Convention and in Article 43  [ Link ] of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. *The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.*​*Rule #3 Customary IHL:  Article 43(2) of Additional Protocol I*

All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.​*(COMMENT)*

There are many things that are not as cut'n'dry as they first seem.  

I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant  --- given that the HoAP have such an extensive history of criminal behaviors relative to the extreme indifference to prohibitions on the direct targeting, on a routine basis of civilians and the total disregard for the for civilians in the routine rocket and mortar attacks.

THUS, allegations by the pro-Palestinian Movement that provides direct support to the HoAP are really diversionary complaints to mitigate their disregard for:

I. The Principle of Distinction --- Customary IHL

1.The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
3.Definition of Combatants
4.Definition of Armed Forces
5.Definition of Civilians
11.Indiscriminate Attacks
12.Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
15.Precautions in Attack
17.Choice of Means and Methods of Warfare
20.Advance Warning
21.Target Selection
23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
96.Hostage-Taking
97.Human Shields​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




Wow.  Your post with just the pictures came off totally different than this.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



As to who determines "intent" - I think and independent inquiry could do that.

Your last question is a difficult one to answer.  Yes, the IDF HQ could be a legitimate target, not unlike the King David Hotel.  It's also located in a densely built up urban area that is part of Israel's original declared state - it's not in any contested areas.  Attacking it would be an act of war against a sovereign state.  While I strongly disagree with Israel's settlement policies and usurption of contested territory - they have not been purposefully targeting civilians in it's military responses to Hamas rocket fire.

Does Hamas show care WHERE it aims it's attacks?  Is there any indication they seek to avoid civilian casualties?  I haven't seen any, in fact they praise civilian casualties.

There is evidence that individual Israeli soldiers and units have acted in reprehensible ways - BUT - there is also evidence that the IDF, as a whole has made a sustained effort to avoid mass civilian casualties, conduct reviews of criminal conduct and at times punished the offenders (is it sufficient, is it fair, is it unbiased? That is arguable - but, as far as I can see Hamas d*oesn't even do that, they reward those who kill civilians including children who in no way can be classified as militants*).


----------



## Coyote (Jun 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> I agree with you...  ...   ....
> 
> ...



One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields.  Otherwise I agree - Hamas shows little regard for civilian lives, and there is simply no way you can muddy it enough to imply a child is a combatent.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant  --- ...



Its another example of shifting the meanings of words in order to demonize Israel, and Israelis and, often, Jews.  Thus people of Jewish ethnic origin who live in Area C move from being residents to "illegal settlers" and now to "non-civilians" or "combatants".  This enables the anti-Israel side to view them as appropriate targets -- even the children.  Its justification for a vile ideology.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields.



How so?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 6, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > One thing though....the pro-Israeli side is also complicit in muddying the waters regarding civilian vs combatent, and in the use of human shields.
> ...



Israel has used human shields (I don't really want to further derail the thread with this, but it's been discussed in other threads) and the pro-Israeli side manages to deny it or even justify it.

In terms of civilians vs combatents - pro-Israeli's are always claiming Hamas hides behind civilians, a claim that ignores the reality of Gaza's urban density.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 6, 2016)

Challenger said:


> In the case of ... Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians?
> 
> The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?
> 
> ...The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?...



All good questions.  Significantly different from P F Tinmore 's insistence that all Jewish Israeli's are legitimate targets, including children, though.  

Here's my initial stab at some possible answers.  This is actually quite complicated (great conversation), so I am quite open to revising my answers based on any good arguments others come up with.  Keep in mind I am not going to try to argue from a legal perspective (RoccoR can have that), but from one of morality.

1.  I would argue that active IDF members (and active Hamas members) would be considered combatants at all times.  However, when mixing with the civilian population and not in the midst of actual combat or exchange of fire the principle of distinction must apply -- you must be able to identify and specifically target only the IDF/Hamas members.  It would not be permissible to target a mixed group of civilians with the assumption that a certain percentage of them would be likely to be military personnel.

2.  Civilians should not be permitted into an active combat zone.  Responsibility for removing them, or not placing them there in the first place, or not creating military objectives in their vicinity lies with their own government or military.

3.  Attacking military objectives is permissible, even when they are in close proximity to civilian areas, as long as the technology used has a reasonable chance of success without harming the civilian structures.  Not permissible to shoot in the general vicinity and hope for the best.  But mistakes do happen.  Also not permissible to deliberately place military objectives within civilian structures as a means of protecting them from attack.  

Challenger , and others, would you agree or disagree?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 6, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


----------



## Shusha (Jun 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


>



Well, that was 99% off-topic.  

First point brought up -- Hamas encourages the use of civilian shields by calling on civilians to gather at places where a known attack is to occur, having been warned by Israel.  

Palestinist "human rights advocate" claims there is no evidence that this is true.  You mean like this evidence?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 6, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Remember, the intent of an action comes before an action.  To determine the intent of the action, you have to look at the evidence of policy before the action.

If, as the one Arab-Palestinians example in *Posting #24*, HAMAS encourages the use of Human Shields, THEN, the intent is established by evidence presented by the accused.  Essentially, the same analysis applies to the targeting of civilians.  In this very discussion group, there have been many examples presented _(especially in the discussions over Arab-Palestinians using "any and all means")_ for the disregard for human life.  The bus bombing  in Jerusalem on 18 April 2016, demonstrates that the targeting of civilians is a recurring theme in Arab-Palestinian operations, 


*Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel's Embassies,
Interests, And Officials Worldwide – And The Interests Of Its Allies,*
Headed By The U.S. MEMRI

_In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps_, _a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr 'Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S._

http://www.btselem.org/topic/israeli_civilians
*Attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians*
*Featured update*
9 Mar 2016
*US citizen killed in stabbing attack in Jaffa, 11 people injured*

Last night the media reported that Taylor Force, a 29-year-old U.S. citizen, was killed and eleven people injured in a stabbing attack by a Palestinian. The assailant was shot dead by security forces. B’Tselem expresses deep sorrow over Taylor Force’s death and conveys its sincerest condolences to his family. B’Tselem sends its best wishes for a speedy recovery to the wounded. The deliberate targeting of civilians undermines every moral, legal and human standard. B’Tselem strongly condemns any and all deliberate attacks against civilians and calls once again on politicians and leaders to act responsibly and avoid fanning the flames of violence.​


Coyote said:


> As to who determines "intent" - I think and independent inquiry could do that.
> 
> Your last question is a difficult one to answer.  Yes, the IDF HQ could be a legitimate target, not unlike the King David Hotel.  It's also located in a densely built up urban area that is part of Israel's original declared state - it's not in any contested areas.  Attacking it would be an act of war against a sovereign state.  While I strongly disagree with Israel's settlement policies and usurption of contested territory - they have not been purposefully targeting civilians in it's military responses to Hamas rocket fire.
> 
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

As far as I can tell, the International Legal Systems currently in place, are too susceptible to political pressures for the State of  Israel to receive a true and fair hearing.  On any issue.  The ICC and the ICJ both have acted in such a manner that neither are clear and fair sounding boards, particularly in the realm of selective enforcement.

To hear the international community talk.  The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled.  That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 6, 2016)

The ICC and ICJ are fair and are presided over by the member state's best and most senior judges.  You just can't male a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  The conflict was incited by the arrival of European settlers intent on taking the land from the inhabitants and creating a state for themselves.  There is just no way around that.  

If ICC and ICJ were around when the Europeans settled the America's, dispossessing the native inhabitants, their decisions would have been similar.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.



Yup, sounds about right. Even way back to the oft quoted Hebron riot Palestinian violence was provoked by zionist actions. The arbitrary creation of the Zionist state in Palestine was one huge mistake with which the "international community" has had to deal with and most are getting fed up with the fact.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 7, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > To hear the international community talk. The Arab Palestinians has never incited a conflict, Israel is always wrong, and the Jewish National Home should be dismantled. That nothing the international community did in the last 100 years, relative to the Middle East, was correct.
> ...



Well, maybe that's your opinion.  My mother and her family had nowhere else to go to after the Holocaust, and they were denied visas to America at that time.  (How times have changed!)  Russian Jews came there after the Soviet Union fell apart, and Ethiopian Jews went there to escape a famine.  Twenty-five flags have crosses on them, and fifteen have crescents, but Israel is the only one with the Star of David.  It's the only land where Hebrew is the official language (along with Arabic).  Who could not be moved at the words and melody of "Hatikvah", the national anthem, which many believe is the most beautiful anthem in the world?  Israel created the cherry tomato and the cell phone.  No matter what anyone says, I'll never believe that creating Israel was a mistake.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 7, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Yes, you are right. America closed it's doors to Jewish immigration and the Zionists held them shut forcing survivors who would have preferred to go anywhere but Palestine into Palestine and the USSR forbade Jewish emmigration when it supported Arab regimes in the region. There are many flags with unique symbols, but no other nation, regardless of how pretty it's national anthem, flouts so many international customes and norms, maintains a brutal and oppressive foreign occupation over a native people and makes things up to justify it's existance...cherry tomatoes? Go tell that to the Peruvians and the Mexicans (Aztecs).


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 7, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

This is not right either.

What you meant to say was:  If TODAY'S ICC and ICJ were around back when ...

Grumbling by selected UN members concerning impartiality are increasing in volume.  Partiality did exist today and had been used to adopt a very arbitrary policy, in which like minded UN members turn a blind eye to crimes and atrocities committed in other countries (Palestine) — in favor of prosecuting crimes alleged to have been committed by the Israel over many decades.  Some countries had ignored the fact that the leaders of the Hostile Arab Palestinian Forces have openly supported jihadism, radicalized Islamism,  and the conduct of terrorist activity _(lending quasi-immunity to state supported terrorism)_.  Some of these same countries had prevented the adoption of a resolution against Palestinians Terrorist groups to hold it responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against the Israelis.

While there are many countries that publicly announce their support against terrorism _*(Nothing can justify terrorism — ever.  No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.)*_;  there is no question that they openly support the Palestinian policy to use terrorists such as that of the Munich Olympic Massacre, the piracy of the MS Achille Lauro, or the TWA Flight 840 hijacking.  These very same countries, that point their fingers at Israel, totally dismiss the kidnapping and murder of teenagers, and attacks such as the recent state sponsored Palestinian Terrorist attack on a known civilians activity --- targeting a bus in Jerusalem, Israel, on 18 April 2016.

This clearly demonstrates the true nature of the State Sponsored pro-Terrorism Movement that masquerades as a resistance activity.



montelatici said:


> The ICC and ICJ are fair and are presided over by the member state's best and most senior judges.  You just can't male a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  The conflict was incited by the arrival of European settlers intent on taking the land from the inhabitants and creating a state for themselves.  There is just no way around that.
> 
> If ICC and ICJ were around when the Europeans settled the America's, dispossessing the native inhabitants, their decisions would have been similar.


*(COMMENT)*

The intellectual and higher morality functions evolved to bring the ICC and ICJ into being were just not there.  These qualities and characteristics of the modern day ICC were developed and only coalesced in the 21st Century; with the treaty adopted by the diplomatic conference in Rome (17 July 1998) and only entered into force on 1 July 2002.

You simply cannot apply or compare the 21st Century potential on a century old complaint that contains its own conclusion for the plaintiff. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...






How is it Israel's warzone when it was the arab muslims that declared war on the Jews, and as a result lost their land to the occupation. Yes Israel has military control of the west bank  and stops the majority of terrorist attacks.  The settlers are legal if you look at International laws as they are on land that is theirs by right, stolen by the Palestinians in 1949. Then the Palestinians agreed to Israel having full control of the area. The Geneva conventions say no such thing and you have refused to link to the actual parts that say what you claim.   What international law ( law and date of implementation ) says they have the right to live on Jewish owned land.   The only international law that the Palestinians have signed made Arafat richer and killed ever more palestinins


----------



## Challenger (Jun 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Grumbling by selected UN members concerning impartiality are increasing in volume.



Really? I wonder who those "selected" UN members are? Do they know, for example that all the current judges on the ICJ have been trained exclusively on the Western model of jurisprudence, either in the U.K. France or the U.S.A. and have practiced and or taught in those countries before being appointed? 

I'm not sure how surprising it would be for a guilty party to make accusations of bias in order to defame the institution in order to "delegitimize" it. If the ICJ judges could be bought, I've no doubt  the Zionist lobby would have bought them by now, like they have the U.S. Congress.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 7, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Indeed, every time there is a problem someplace else they dump on the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the problems.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote,  et al,
> ...








 I could muddy it very easily by asking at what age does a palestinian child reach their majority, and then say that is an adult and not a child under their laws.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 7, 2016)

Challenger said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...









 How about a LINK then showing that the Zionists held the doors shut for the Jews. Or is this another of your lies that will never be substantiated. If you look you will see that every nation in the west closed their doors to Jewish refugees escaping the Nazi's.  In the case of Britain it even illegally closed the doors of Palestine and mass murdered thousands of Jews in the process. Not a thing to do with Zionism but all down to hatred of the Jews that is still running wild today. How do you wipe out 2000 years of hatred when the teachers are allowed to teach such hatreds, and the law does not support the Jews. A Jew reports a racist attack and they get a crime number, a muslim reports the same crime and he gets a senior officer along with 3 cars looking for anyone matching the description.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



It was the right thing to do....but there are wrongs that need to be righted imo.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.​


​
Child soldiers are soldiers nonetheless.   If a child picks up a weapon and uses it against you, they must be considered combatants and treated accordingly. 

The responsibility for using child soldiers and for their deaths is the force which allows their use.  This applies in the Gaza conflicts as many of the children who died were, in fact, combatants.  Responsibility lies with Gaza.  Not Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?



It is never permissible to target only civilians.  

But the days of two armies lining up across from one another in a field outside of town are long gone.  In some situations, especially in urban environments, civilian casualties are unavoidable.  So yes, it is permissible to target military installations and objectives, knowing there will be civilian casualties.  They should be minimized.  Its a weighing of the value of a military resource and the number of casualties, as awful as that sounds.  What is the entrance to a tunnel worth, in terms of lives?  5?  10?  20?  50?  What is a cache of weapons worth?  100?  1000?  What is a year without rockets or suicide bombs worth?  2000 lives?  10,000?  Its a judgement call.  A difficult one.  How does one even make those decisions?

And it has to be considered from both sides, as well.  If your enemy is about to destroy the entrance to a tunnel, and that entrance is in your home -- do you keep your family there, on the roof, hoping that will deter the enemy from firing, risking them?  Or do you keep your family safe and remove them?  And whose responsibility is it, then, for the loss of your family, if it happens?  Do you choose your family or do you choose the "righteousness" of your cause?  And if you choose your cause -- why do you blame your enemy?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Not even you could stretch it to encompass a 3 yr old.​
> ...



I think - RoccoR correct me if I'm wrong - but there are special rules for the treatment and handling of child soldiers?

In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents.  For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead

_Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities_​


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?
> ...



Interesting points - all (no easy answers to any of these questions)...

But at some point...is a line crossed where the civilian toll is beyond the pale?  I'm thinking of Russian strikes in the Syrian conflict that have targeted supposed "terrorist" strongholds with what appears to be no regard for civilians, hospitals or schools?  Does it then cross into criminality?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents.  For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead
> 
> _Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip - 22 took part in the hostilities, 318 did not take part in the hostilities, 4 it is not known if they were taking part in the hostilities_​



Its been a long time since I have looked at those B'tselem numbers, but if I recall correctly their criteria for "took part in the hostilities" was quite high.  Either way, we agree that some of the children killled were combatants.  

Child Soldiers International (an overview of IHL with respect to child soldiers)
Short version is the children under the age of 15 can be neither used nor recruited.  Those over the age of 15, while technically still children, and reported as children, can be legal combatants.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> But at some point...is a line crossed where the civilian toll is beyond the pale?  I'm thinking of Russian strikes in the Syrian conflict that have targeted supposed "terrorist" strongholds with what appears to be no regard for civilians, hospitals or schools?  Does it then cross into criminality?



Of course it does.  The difficulty is in judging where along the continuum that happens.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents.  For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead
> ...



I thought it was something like it, and the use of child soldiers is a war crime I think.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I thought it was something like it, and the use of child soldiers is a war crime I think.



Rome Statute:  

_In its definition of war crimes the statute includes "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities" (Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi)) in international armed conflict; and in the case of an internal armed conflict, "conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities" (Article 8(2)(e)(vii))._


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote, Phoenall, et al,

I think you've missed the point.  (Skip to "∑" below.) 



Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The nature of the complexity is much more complex then this.  There are several dozen investigative interrogatives that need to be properly and on balance --- pursued.  I 'll give you just one.

√  EXAMPLE - USING RULES #23 - #24: 

23.  Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.  Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives​The UN and the ICJ/ICC, thus far, have indicated (by commission - Malfeasance on the part of the courts - Misfeasance on the part of the UN) that the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) is at "no fault" and "need not comply" with any of the rules Customary to International Humanitarian Law (IHL).  

This means that in the application of Rules #23 and #24, the Customary IHL can only be applied in its polarized forms:  It can only be applied to the Israelis and not the HoAP:

23.  Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas

•  Israeli must locate Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Area.
•  The HoAP may locate military supplies, command and control activities, and active launch sites anywhere.​24.  Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives

•  Israel must removal Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives.
•  The HoAP need not removal any Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives.​Any civilian deaths arising from launch sites and intrusion and infiltration tunnels are the fault.  The HoAP may launch thousands of rockets towards Israel --- “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from Israeli military operations,” from Densely Populated Area and Protected Activities, without fear of being criticized.  

This is just one of several dozen examples of what is called the "FALSE COLOR of LAW."  This is when UN officials or the General Assembly, International judges, prosecutors, and investigators have been given influence over international agencies to—allow and encourage the HoAP the use deadly force against multinationals inside and outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  Yet, deny the same level and use of force by the Israelis.

*(∑ - THE REAL POINT)*

At some point in time, the world at large must recognize that whatever the rules the HoAP is operating within, that have be tacitly approved by the world bodies, will (at some point) be reflected by the Israelis.   If the HoAP may indiscriminately fire thousands of rockets into Israel - without criticism from the world bodies, then at some point the customary IHL must afford Israel the same tacit approval.  If it is permissible for the HoAP to target civilians in Israel without criticism, then at some point the customary IHL must afford Israel the same tacit approval.

It is not law --- unless it applied equally to every nation.  If it is OK for the HoAP to kidnap and murder, or simple tourists, then it is OK for the reverse to be true.

If it is OK for the UN to diplomatically and politically PRAISE acts, methods, and practices of terrorism  that knowingly financing, planning and inciting further terrorist acts, then it must be OK for Israel to do the same.

*Palestinian Authority Media Praises Terrorist Who Killed American Tourist *MAY 25, 2016 ​Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 7, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Sorry to be so long in returning the your question.  In my library, there are the four basic documents.

Well, there are a whole set of protocols:  Child Rights: Key international treaties in the promotion, protection and fulfillment of children’s rights *A Compendium for child rights advocates, scholars and policy makers* April 2014. 



Coyote said:


> I think - RoccoR correct me if I'm wrong - but there are special rules for the treatment and handling of child soldiers?
> 
> In terms of the Gaza conflicts - many of the children killed were not combatents.  For example, during Operation Cast Lead: Fatalities during Operation Cast Lead
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Inside the compendium, there are basic protocol requirements for:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Optional Protocol on Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict.​*Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement *
*of children in armed conflict*

*Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000*
*Entry into Force 12 February 2002*


HOWEVER, the *declarations and reservations *are nearly as long as the Treaty itself.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 7, 2016)

It is not applied equally to every nation.  The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians.  The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities.  The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader.  They would never do that for Bargouti, for example.  Israel always gets a pass.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 7, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

OH, please!  This is another victimization effort.



montelatici said:


> It is not applied equally to every nation.  The VIZI (Vicious Israeli Zionist Invaders) usually get a pass while the West criticizes any form of resistance by the Palestinians.  The Kurds in Turkey are rarely criticized as the Palestinians are, when they set off bombs killing civilians in Turkish cities.  The British Parliament recently voted to demand the Turks release Abdullah Ocalan, the PKK leader.  They would never do that for Bargouti, for example.  Israel always gets a pass.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not sure, but I think I got this information from you!



vr,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> OH, please!  This is another victimization effort.
> 
> ...



I said the West.  Those resolutions are passed by 90% of the world states, but not the West that Israel has in its pocket.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 7, 2016)

montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...



When wiki fails you, there are always conspiracy theories as a last gasp.


----------



## Daniyel (Jun 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


"Intent" by itself is only one of the features.
Every suspect (by law) has at least two of the following three -
1.Intent 
2.Capability 
3.Weapon
Upon having all three (which can happen in a second) the suspect must be neutralized.
If not all three exist then there is a special procedure for suspects.
(*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)
That is the law in Israel, wanna know what is the law in Gaza? Please tell me because I don't have a clue.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> THUS, allegations by the pro-Palestinian Movement that provides direct support to the HoAP are really diversionary complaints to mitigate their disregard for:
> 
> I. The Principle of Distinction --- Customary IHL
> 
> ...



So whe the IDF disregards the above, does that mean the allegations by the pro-Zionist Hasbara Movement that provides direct support to the Zionist regime are really diversionary complaints to mitigate that disregard?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I do not find it so unusual that the pro-Palestinian Movement and the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) would attempt to muddy the waters on the issue of --- civilian 'vs' combatant  --- ...
> ...



Drivel. 

Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers, if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civillians; either to kill or to intimidate, that turns them from "civilians" to "combatants" and thus fair game.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?



What about a civilian factory that produces components for weapons (or manufactures uniforms, food, etc for the military)? The factory is a legitimate military target and the civilian employees are by the very nature of their work contributing to the war effort. That makes them legitimate targets.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> OH, please!  This is another victimization effort.
> 
> ...


That's because Zionist Israel has committed 77(+) acts in breach of International law the UN considered worthy of condemnation. While the US keeps playing the get out of jail free card for Zionist Israel, there will never be a peaceful settlement.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

Daniyel said:


> (*Side note - none of the people in the pictures actually have a loaded weapon)



Look again, there are two with magazines attached and short magazines are available for the Tavor (pictures aren't that clear) also there's nothing to say the rest aren't carrying magazines in backpacks, pockets, etc.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> OH, please!  This is another victimization effort.
> 
> ...


Did you ever think that those allegations are true?

Nah, an Israeli shill would never think of such a thing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 8, 2016)

Daniyel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Laws passed by the PLC in 1999:

It is legal for Palestine to manufacture and import weapons.

Palestinians have the right to bear arms.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?
> ...



I think the pro-Islamic terrorist taqiyya movement types are intending to play off the Islamic terrorist slogan that because all Israelis will perform military duty, they are all military targets. 

It does show the corruption of the convert mindset, especially for the converts waging their gee-had from behind their keyboard. 

What the pro-Islamic terrorist taqiyya movement types don't understand is that if Israel chooses to abandon its practice of acting with measured responses to acts of Islamic terrorism and proceeds on the basis that all Arabs-Moslems occupying the disputed territories are military targets, the West Bank and Gaza could quickly become an Israeli shopping mall and parking lot.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Islamic terrorists passing "laws". 

Now that's funny.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



If the Zionists had their way it would be the right to bare arms, and then only grudgingly.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 8, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Drivel.
> 
> Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers, if they carry arms (as just about all of them seem to do) and use them against civillians; either to kill or to intimidate, that turns them from "civilians" to "combatants" and thus fair game.



Ah, no.  If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons on civilians, unprovoked, they would be terrorists.  If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves. 

(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves).  

The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Drivel.
> ...



Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?



Of course.  Why would you think I would answer differently?  EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves when being attacked.  And every country (or wanna-be country) has a right to protect its sovereignty (or wanna-be sovereignty).  

But Israel does not instigate attacks against Gaza.  Israel responds against attacks from Gaza.  And Israel is not attempting to remove the Palestinists sovereignty in Gaza, but only to prevent further attacks on Israel, thus protecting Israel's sovereignty and citizens.  

Every action Israel has taken against Gaza since its withdrawal in 2005 has been an act of defense against harm to her citizens or her sovereignty.  Every attack by Gaza has been an affront to Israel's citizens or sovereignty.


----------



## Coyote (Jun 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Then, does that mean that Gazan civilians, firing weapons in response to an attack by Israel, are defending themselves?
> ...



Every time Israel militarily *enters Gaza*, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians *do have the right to defend themselves* - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents".  I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Every time Israel militarily *enters Gaza*, regardless of the reason - Gazan civilians *do have the right to defend themselves* - but if they do, they are labeled "combatents".  I think these distinctions have the ability to get very murky.



Sure.  When Israel militarily enters Gaza (which she does only in order to defend herself against belligerent attacks) Gazans have the right to defend themselves (keeping in mind they are the instigator and thus responsible for the consequences of the instigation). And Israel has a right to defend themselves against that attack.  Everyone has the right defend themselves when attacked.  

 And yes, if a civilian actively assists in the acts of war and violence  -- he/she becomes a combatant.  If he/she leaves the battlefield, he/she remains a civilian and is protected.  I don't understand how this is murky.  If you fight, you are a combatant.  If you choose not to fight, you are a civilian.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 8, 2016)

Shusha,  Challenger,  et al,

Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail.  You have to think about this with a clear eye.



Shusha said:


> Drivel.  Zionist Israeli settlers have alway been considered illegal settlers,



*(COMMENT)*

Yes, but are they really?  And even if this was true _(no legal finding one way or the other)_, some complaints can be placed on a different level all together through mitigation and negotiation.  Most complainers seem to make a big  leap.  On the record (1993/1995), the entire issue of "settlements" was placed --- included --- to the Oslo Accords _(Permanent Status of Negotiation)_.

Settlements, as an agreed upon protocol, within Area C under exclusive Israeli control.  If there were to be a dispute to develop, there was a "Dispute Resolution Process" agreed upon.

The Arab-Palestinians never activated the "Dispute Resolution Process."

IF Area "C" is under exclusive Israeli control, that has not been contested by any Arab Palestinian faction using the agreed upon protocols, THEN the exclusive control granted by the Arab Palestinian provides the proper authority.

The legitimacy of the OSLO is established in a multitude of ways.  But none of them holds a candle to International Recognition:




EXCERPT: Presentation Speech by Francis Sejersted, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
In the committee's view, the so-called Oslo Accords2 concluded last year between Israel and the PLO meant that developments in the Middle East had taken a new turning. What was revolutionary about them was the de facto mutual recognition by the two parties. Not least by virtue of that recognition, the accords opened up a possible way out of the vicious circle of violence breeding violence, and towards peaceful co-existence.​


Shusha said:


> if they carry arms _(as just about all of them seem to do)_ and use them against civilians);


*(COMMENT)*

All types of people carry firearms that are not considered "armed forces or combatants."  Police, criminals, and other for security and personal protection.  The definition of a civilian and member of an armed force



Shusha said:


> If Jewish Israeli citizens living in Area C fire weapons, provoked, they would be defending themselves.
> 
> _(Provocation meaning being physically attacked themselves)_.
> 
> The possession of a gun, of itself, does not make one a combatant.



*(COMMENT)*

Self-defense and events of provocation are matters for a case-by-case operational or area security incident investigations.  Anyone that questions "provocation" must have information of a detail that describes the event in a evidentiary manner.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail.  You have to think about this with a clear eye.
> 
> ...


Self-defense and events of provocation are matters...​
Occupation/colonization is not an event. It is a violent and aggressive process. It is 24/7 violence.

Anything the Palestinians do is a response.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,  Challenger,  et al,
> ...



Actually, no. 

The Hamas charter is a statement of offensive gee-had. You should familiarize youself with the islamo-fascist concept of waqf. That term is used explicitly in the islamo-fascist charter that whines incessantly about islamo-supremacy and the continuing failure of Islamism to achieve its goals.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 8, 2016)

Hamas is one Palestinian party.  The Likud party's ZioNazi charter is similar in asserting Jewish supremacy over non-Jews.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 8, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hamas is one Palestinian party.  The Likud party's ZioNazi charter is similar in asserting Jewish supremacy over non-Jews.


Another of your silly attempts at analogy. 

The Likud party is one political entity within a framework of a representative government. 

The Hamas Islamic terrorists rule by force of threat and intimidation and have complete control over a population that has no effective voice of dissent.

Flailing your Pom Poms for Islamic terrorists is hilarious.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression."  You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.

Similarly, there is a difference between "colonization" (A/RES/3314) on behalf of a foreign power, "Colonial Countries" and Peoples (A/RES/15/1514), and the authorized "immigration" by the government holding title and rights to the territory.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *(COMMENT)*​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually not.

The conflict and disruption within the territory Israeli occupied from the Egyptians, and the territory annexed by the Jordanian, is a direct cause of the ArabPalestinian opposing peace, stability and security.

•  The Committee 24 already has indicated that Palestine (any part it) is not applicable for implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

•  The "Occupation" was not established with the Arab Palestinians.  The Issues of Aggression, if there were actually any issues, was resolved by Treaty.​
The Arab Palestinians have no real record of being peaceful or cooperative, even with the Jordanians that came to their rescue (for the last 100 years).  The non-consensual nature of the belligerent occupation was a natural and logical outcome of the hostile diplomacy and the total disregard of customary IHL; particularly after the Armistice period; beginning 1949.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Jun 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Yes, but are they really?



Yes, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, the ICJ, the UNGA, the UNSC and the world in general.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Well, --- you have to think about this with a little more detail.  You have to think about this with a clear eye.
> 
> ...



The Oslo Accords have lapsed, or hadn't you heard? Anyone carrying arms during hostilities, in uniform or not, is not a "protected person" so is therfore a "combatant"


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 9, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

Settlements Rulings have been individual or sometimes, in multiples depending on the relationships they have to each other.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but are they really?
> ...


*(REFERENCE)*


*Israel's top court orders West Bank settlement demolished*
Los Angeles Times
Israel’s Supreme Court has ordered the government to demolish the West Bank settlement of Amona within two years and relocate its 300 Jewish residents, moving to end a years-long legal battle.

*Israeli Supreme Court Rejects Compromise*
Israel's High Court of Justice rejected a compromise deal between the state and residents of the West Bank outpost of Migron on Sunday, an agreement that would have prevented Israel from having to dismantle the settlement following a Supreme Court ruling.
read more: Israel Supreme Court rejects compromise deal on West Bank settlement of Migron

*Israeli Court Rules Against Illegal Settlement*
Migron is an unauthorized Israeli outpost located on privately held Palestinian land in the West Bank. Israeli “ultranationalists” settled Migron illegally in 2001. The Israeli supreme court has now ruled that its government must evacuate Migron by August 1, 2012. But Palestinians are still skeptical that the ruling will be carried out. According to the Palestinian authority, Migron is one of many illegal Israeli-outpost settlements that are supposed to be evacuated.

*Israeli Court Orders Three West Bank Settlements Demolished*
ULPANA, Beit El, Occupied West Bank - The European Union this week continued the international condemnation of Israel's policy of building settlements in largely Palestinian areas. The enclaves are a stumbling block to restarting peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians. But in a minor win for Palestinians, an Israeli court has ordered three small West Bank settlements to be demolished after ruling they were illegal.​*(COMMENT)*

The Israeli Supreme Court has not ruled, as you imply, that ALL settlements are illegal.  But there have been a dozen or so ordered demolished.

The ICJ, in its "Advisory Opinion" concluded that the "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law;"  contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention which provides: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”   HOWEVER, the ICJ did not have a hearing on the issue of the Settlements.  

No question, there are a number of UN Security Council Resolution that can be interpreted as condemning the State of Israel.  Collectively, the UN the Security Council and the ICJ/ICC are all related.  And Just as it is --- one decision from any one of those entities, is merely repeated in a different form, from an adjacent International activity.  But let there be no mistake, the fact that the International Community has, for the last 7 decades, consistently exercise their discretion, which is the power to choose whether or not to condemn or convict the Jewish National Home of some violated the law; is misfeasance on the part of the body and malfeasance on the part of the courts.

•  Collectively, the international bodies have made NO attempt to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

•  The ICJ/ICC have allowed their procedures to be used bothe in terms of propaganda and as a weapon for extending improper influences from business, family, position, party, or person.

•  The international community and court made no attempt to avoid activities that would impugn the dignity of the the law.  The Palestinians are encouraged, and indeed in some ways facilitated, in the commission of violations in Customary and International Humanitarian Law, and to pursue criminal acts in violation of the Laws of Armed Conflict; while at the same time launching criminal investigations against Israel and the Jewish National Home (JNH).   This is known as SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT and a symptom of a corrupt system.​
Your post only adds to the justification that Israel should continue to maintain, strengthen and improve security countermeasures designed to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home described a century ago in the Balfour Declaration.

The events, in recent times, when the JNH is besieged by multiple facets within the International Community, may at some point it becomes necessary for a member nation preserving the JNH to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the United Nations and to separate from that body to initiate a new and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and common sense apply.   That waypoint is coming ever closer to a reality, not just for Israel, but a number of nations wherein there is no further benefit to the affiliation.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression."  You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.
> 
> ...


Great link, thanks. A/RES/29/3314 - Definition of Aggression - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements

It is a virtually perfect description of Israel's occupation of Palestine in1948.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, there is a difference between what an "Occupation" is -- and the definition of "Aggression."  You are merely trying to justify the use of terrorism and the targeting of civilians by drawing on sympathy.
> 
> ...



Rocco,

People that are being colonized by people from another continent, sanctioned and promoted by a foreign imperial colonial power, are not required to cooperate and welcome their dispossession. 

No allied power had the right to undertake the invasion or colonization by non-inhabitants of the territory relinquished by the  Central Powers. This was clearly stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 to wit:

"*ARTICLE 22.*
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle* that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation* and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Watching you do the monkey see no evil, hear no evil thing is embarrassing when the legal point is clear.  

The Covenant made it clear that the British *who signed the Covenant" were not permitted to harm the inhabitants by implementing a colonial project which would dispossess the native inhabitants.

Palestine's status as a  non-self governing territory is addressed in separate UN resolutions and acts, specifically. As you well know.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 9, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Yes, Article 22 does say that.  But Article 22 was _(literally)_ written by the Allied Powers in 1919 _(nearly a century ago)_.  And a century ago, the Allied Powers were involved in the Great War (WWI).  Emerging out of that Great War were the Principle Allied Powers and the many new countries that were created.

Remember that 1949 Geneva Conventions (all) represent a significant piece to the international law and, establishes Rules of Conduct for parties engaged in armed conflict. The norms of humanitarian law require that violent acts be consonant with fundamental human rights. Two principles underlie the law: 

√  First, “all peoples have a right to self-determination and ... a right to engage in revolution”; and 

√  Second, “international law ... limits the permissibility of armed revolution and participation of individuals in revolutionary social violence.”​
And it is this "second" part where we start to split apart.  Wars/Conflicts (AIC/NAIC) of these general types come in several varieties containing profile characteristics:

(1)  Struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant;

(2)  Those that have evolved within the UN and identified as colonial entities and non-self-governing institutions and/or racist regimes involved in an armed struggles aimed at resisting the imposition of governance;

(3)  Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;”

(4)  Armed Struggle of dissident movements representing a component people which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.​


montelatici said:


> People that are being colonized by people from another continent, sanctioned and promoted by a foreign imperial colonial power, are not required to cooperate and welcome their dispossession.
> 
> No allied power had the right to undertake the invasion or colonization by non-inhabitants of the territory relinquished by the  Central Powers. This was clearly stated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 to wit:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, the easy one:  There is no non-self-governing territory (NSGT) anywhere in the Middle East.  The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).  The official UN NSGTs List is at the
*Non-Self-Governing Territories List*.  Palestine IS NOT a NSGT, 

You haven't made a legal point yet.  Article 22 was written by the Applied Powers and for the use by the Allied Powers.  It is not for the Arab Palestinians to determine what was in the best interest and well-being and development of such peoples.  In fact, if you compare the Arab League to the State of Israel for composite statistics of life expectancy, education, and income per capita indicators, which are used to rank countries into four tiers of human development, you will find you will find that Israel (The Jewish State) is much farther along.

The occupied Palestinian territories _(or the Palestinians in general)_ have not yet demonstrated that they were "able to stand alone" [Article 22(4)]; as evidenced by the amount of donor contributions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Yes, Article 22 does say that.  But Article 22 was _(literally)_ written by the Allied Powers in 1919 _(nearly a century ago)_.  And a century ago, the Allied Powers were involved in the Great War (WWI).  Emerging out of that Great War were the Principle Allied Powers and the many new countries that were created.
> Remember that 1949 Geneva Conventions (all) represent a significant piece to the international law and, establishes Rules of Conduct for parties engaged in armed conflict. The norms of humanitarian law require that violent acts be consonant with fundamental human rights. Two principles underlie the law:
> ...


This is not a complete list. The United Nations and Decolonization - Committee of 24 - Non-Self-Governing Territories

Tibet, Kashmir, and Palestine are not listed. Just a few off the top of my head.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 9, 2016)

Rocco,

The colonization of Palestine is declared in specific UN Resolutions:

Resolution 3092

4. *Calls upon Israel to desist immediately from the annexation and colonization of the Arab territories occupied by it since 1967*, the establishment of settlements and the transfer of population to, from or within those territories, and from all the other practices referred to in paragraph 3 above;


UN General Assembly Resolution 3092 (December 1973) | Jewish Virtual Library

Resolution 3025

8. _Reaffirms further_ that Israel's policy of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in the occupied territories is a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the relevant United Nations resolutions, and urges all States to refrain from any action which Israel will exploit in carrying out* its policy of colonizing the occupied territories;
*
UN General Assembly Resolution 3525 (December 1975) | Jewish Virtual Library

And Resolution 34/44 where Palestine is associated directly with Resolution 1514, that you claimed does not refer to Palestine. 

_Reaffirming _its faith in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the importance of its implementation,............_Indignant_ at the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples still under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia and South Africa's attempts to dismember its territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority régimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa *and the denial to the Palestinian people of its inalienable national rights,
*
UN General Assembly Resolution 34/44 (November 1979) | Jewish Virtual Library


----------



## Tuatara (Jun 9, 2016)

Could you imagine if soldiers who killed civilians (including dropping bombs on civilians) were charged with murder how the rate of recruitment for the military would drastically reduce.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OH, you have some crazy answer for everything.



P F Tinmore said:


> This is not a complete list. The United Nations and Decolonization - Committee of 24 - Non-Self-Governing Territories
> 
> Tibet, Kashmir, and Palestine are not listed. Just a few off the top of my head.


*(COMMENT)*

Look, you just don't understand the criteria.  You make it up so as to include you Palestine.

*Committee of 24*
*2016 Session*
*Documents*


Organization of Work: A/AC.109/2016/L.1 and A/AC.109/2016/L.

*Press Releases*


12 April 2016: Special Committee on Decolonization to Hold Pacific Regional Seminar in Managua, Nicaragua, 31 May-2 June
25 February 2016 - Intensify Action-oriented Dialogue to Boost Momentum for Self-determination, Urges Secretary-General, as Special Committee on Decolonization Begins 2016 Session
The list was updated in the Session beginning on 25 February 2016:

On 25 Feb 16:

Rafael Darío Ramírez Carreño (Venezuela), who was elected Chair of the Special Committee by acclamation, said decolonization had been one of the most important tasks in the history of the United Nations and had become one of its main symbols.  However, the persistence of colonial situations around the world undoubtedly represented a blatant violation of fundamental rights, contradicting the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, and a “stigma in the conscience of the world”.  *Half a century after the adoption of the decolonization Declaration, 17 cases of colonialism had not been resolved, he noted*.​
•  People's Republic of China (PRC) incorporated Tibet (Bod) in 1950; a Provincial Government that is autonomous.  It is not a NSGT.  While there are three General Assembly Resolutions on the Question of Tibet, the fact remains that the Resolution were non-binding and under Customary Law, there was no international enforcement.  The incorporation of Tibet into the PRC stands.  The doctrine of binding precedent (historical enforcement record) and _stare decisis_ _("to stand by that which was previously decided")_ the 1950's decision of incorporation and annexation is just as valid and gone unchallenged as the 1950 Jordanian Annexation of the West Bank that went unchallenged, or the annexation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014.

•  Kashmir is an International Territorial Dispute; to be settled by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered; A/RES25/2625.  It is not a NSGT; it is a disputed territory under a mutual ceasefire adopted by India and Pakistan in 2003.  

•  Palestine is a "state" that declared independence in 1988.  It is not an NSGT.

Now I know that you disagree, but that is the way it is in the reality of the concrete world.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 9, 2016)

Tuatara,  et al,

That is exactly why the HoAP want the world to accept that the Palestinians are exempt from Law of Armed Conflict, the Customary IHL and the Hague Regulation/Geneva Conventions.



Tuatara said:


> Could you imagine if soldiers who killed civilians (including dropping bombs on civilians) were charged with murder how the rate of recruitment for the military would drastically reduce.


*(COMMENT)*

For NIACs/IACs there is a general rule that prohibits the Palestinian policy of “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” by ignoring rules: 

23.Location of Military Objectives outside Densely Populated Areas
24.Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
But you have to remember that this is a matter of selective enforcement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 9, 2016)

You lost Rocco, give it up.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 9, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Oh yeah...



montelatici said:


> Rocco,
> 
> The colonization of Palestine is declared in specific UN Resolutions:
> 
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

Can you help me out here???


Which one of these UN Resolutions are "binding?"
What date did they go into force?
Which ones are compatible with the actual Customary Law in which it is practiced?

Many Thanks,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OH, you have some crazy answer for everything.
> 
> ...


Look, you just don't understand the criteria. You make it up so as to include you Palestine.​
No, I include Palestine because it is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun. It is what it is what it is. The sky is blue and Palestine is ruled by "Israel."


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



Mindlessly cutting and pasting "Arab street" you tube videos as toothless testimony to support a worthless point is time wasting.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh yeah...
> 
> ...



Wrong question RoccoR. Zionist israel would be an international pariah state by now if not for the U.S.A.

"The United States voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution on Friday (2010) that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted.

The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down.

The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors. The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world."
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/...un-resolution-condemning-settlements-1.344390

On in a string of vetos that make a mockery of International law and allow the Zionist regime to do what it likes:

_Prior to the Nixon administration, the United States had never employed its veto power in the U.N. Security Council. It was first used March 17, 1970 over Southern Rhodesia. The second U.S. veto came two years later, when Washington sought to protect Israel from a resolution condemning Israel for one of its attacks on its neighbors. Since then, the United States has cast its veto a total of 39 times to shield Israel from Security Council draft resolutions that condemned, deplored, denounced, demanded, affirmed, endorsed, called on and urged Israel to obey the world body._

Sept. 10, 1972—Condemned Israel’s attacks against Southern Lebanon and Syria; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention
July 26, 1973—Affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, statehood and equal protections; vote: 13 to 1, with China absent.
Dec. 8, 1975—Condemned Israel’s air strikes and attacks in Southern Lebanon and its murder of innocent civilians; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
Jan. 26, 1976—Called for self-determination of Palestinian people; vote: 9 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
March 25, 1976—Deplored Israel’s altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is recognized as an international city, by most world nations and the United Nation’s; vote: 14 to 1.
June 29, 1976—Affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
April 30, 1980—Endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
Jan. 20, 1982—Demanded Israel’s withdrawal from the Golan Heights; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
April 2, 1982—Condemned Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva Convention protocols of civilized nations; vote: 14 to 1.
April 20, 1982—Condemned an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers on the Temple Mount of the Haram al-Sharaf near the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem; vote: 14 to 1.
June 8, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
June 26, 1982—Urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its invasion of Beirut, Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
Aug. 6, 1982—Urged cut-off of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw from its occupation of Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Aug. 2, 1983—Condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to peace; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
Sept. 6, 1984—Deplored Israel’s brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urged its withdrawal; vote: 14 to 1.
March 12, 1985—Condemned Israeli brutality in Southern Lebanon and denounced Israel’s “Iron Fist” policy of repression; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Sept. 13, 1985—Denounced Israel’s violation of human rights in the occupied territories; vote: 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
Jan. 17, 1986—Deplored Israel’s violence in Southern Lebanon; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Jan. 30, 1986—Deplored Israel’s activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem which threaten the sanctity of Muslim holy sites; vote: 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.
Feb. 6, 1986—Condemned Israel’s hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane on Feb. 4; vote: 10 to 1, with 1 abstention.
Jan. 18, 1988—Deplored Israeli attacks against Lebanon and its measures and practices against the civilian population of Lebanon; vote: 13 to 1, with Britain abstaining.
Feb. 1, 1988—Called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian uprising that violate the rights of occupied Palestinians, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations; vote: 14 to 1.
April 15, 1988—Urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned Israel’s shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and called for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices; vote: 14 to 1.
May 10, 1988—Condemned Israel’s May 2 incursion into Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
Dec. 14, 1988—Deplored Israel’s Dec. 9 commando raids on Lebanon; vote: 14 to 1.
Feb. 17, 1989—Deplored Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.
June 9, 1989—Deplored Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians; vote: 14 to 1.
Nov. 7, 1989—Demanded Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s crackdown on the Palestinian uprising; vote: 14 to 1.
May 31, 1990—Called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands; vote: 14 to 1.
May 17, 1995—Declared invalid Israel’s expropriation of land in East Jerusalem and in violation of Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva convention; vote: 14 to 1.
March 7, 1997—Called on Israel to refrain from settlement activity and all other actions in the occupied territories; vote:14 to 1.
March 21, 1997—Demanded Israel cease construction of the settlement Har Homa (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians) in East Jerusalem and cease all other settlement activity in the occupied territories; vote: 13 to 1, with one abstention.
March 26, 2001—Called for the deployment of a U.N. observer force in the West Bank and Gaza; vote: 9 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
Dec. 14, 2001—Condemned all acts of terror, the use of excessive force and destruction of properties and encouraged establishment of a monitoring apparatus; vote: 12-1, with 2 abstentions.
Dec. 19, 2002—Expressed deep concern over Israel’s killing of U.N. employees and Israel’s destruction of the U.N. World Food Program warehouse in Beit Lahiya and demanded that Israel refrain from the excessive and disproportionate use of force in the occupied territories; vote: 12 to 1, with 2 abstentions.
Sept. 16, 2003—Reaffirmed the illegality of deportation of any Palestinian and expressed concern about the possible deportation of Yasser Arafat; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Oct. 14, 2003—Raised concerns about Israel’s building of a securiy fence through the occupied West Bank; vote 10 to 1, with 4 abstentions.
March 25, 2004—Condemned Israel for killing Palestinian spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in a missile attack in Gaza; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
Oct. 5, 2004—Condemned Israel’s military incursion in Gaza, causing many civilian deaths and extensive damage to property; vote: 11 to 1, with 3 abstentions.
An Updated List of Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Oh yeah...
> 
> ...



Rocco

Now, when presented with the resolutions that address Palestine specifically and directly as a territory under colonial rule, you complain that they are General Assembly resolutions, while citing the de-colonization resolution (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples), another General Assembly Resolution (and the list of non-self governing territories and Palestine's absence on it) as proof that Palestine is not a colony. Resolutions that confirm Palestine's colonial status is as binding as the list of non self-governing territories.



You lose again.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

￼￼￼￼￼￼The UN becomes something of a laughable joke when Islamist nations are a part of the Human Rights Council. 


The U.N.-Israel Relationship | Jewish Virtual Library

United Nations:
The U.N. Relationship with Israel

by Mitchell Bard
(Updated March 2016)

United Nations: Table of Contents | Conference on Racism | Security Council

￼

In his speech to open the 61st General Assembly of the United Nations in September 2006, then-Secretary General Kofi Anan admitted that Israel is often unfairly judged by the international body and its various organizations. “On one side, supporters of Israel feel that it is harshly judged by standards that are not applied to its enemies,” Annan said. “And too often this is true, particularly in some UN bodies.”1


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

Why don't you post the rest of his statement?

"On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by *Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."*


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I am often reminded that:

_"As long as a society is divided, security sector reform can never achieve its main objective, which is to 
provide security and justice for all. "_
.            .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .                  .          .           .          ._Towards Palestinian National Recognition
.           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .          .           .      ©            .          .           .          .Ramallah and Geneva, Second Edition 2011_​I always thought that the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) was a little too optimistic when they wrote that.  They imply, by using the term of "society," that the Israelis and Arab Palestinians are "one" (the same people), just of a different mind.  I tend to think the entire Middle East as an organism, infected with a virus.  As Erin Daly (Widener University Delaware Law School) and Jeremy Sarkin (Professor of Law at the University of South Africa) once wrote:

“Reconciliation is the soil in which democracy takes root. Democracy can thrive only where the disparate factions in society have chosen to be governed in common. Democracy requires that the disappointed minority accede to the will of the majority – a concession that can happen only if *the minority and the majority are sufficiently reconciled that they accept each other’s presence* in the polity and the content of each other’s choices as legitimate, even if they don’t agree with them.” 

“Societies that produce despots are polarized ones in which enough members are disaffected that they are willing to turn against, or support, a regime that turns against their fellow citizens. If reconciliation is going to have a deterrent effect it must be reconciliation among the people, not just between the leaders. (…) *Despotism will be deterred when the people will have enough connection to one another that they will not allow a despot to divide them;* when the people have enough respect for human rights that they will not tolerate abusive means even to achieve ends that they might otherwise like; when they are sufficiently invested in their communities and in their nations that they ask questions and demand accountability from their leaders.” ​
The Arab-Palestinian people have not yet achieved enough connection with the Israelis that they will not allow a despot to divide them. Instead, as the Arab-Palestinians continue a level of belligerents that threaten the peace and security of Israel, the longer it will take for the Arab-Palestinian to develop a basic foundation on which they can "stand alone" (Article 22 Criteria).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *(COMMENT)*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.  As you know, Article 33(1) plays a major rule in the "reconciliation" process when settling disputes between peacefully using the generally recognized international adjudication process.  But some of these processes, like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), are cut short because Article 92 stipulates that the ICJ may only issue binding rulings in disputes between states.  

Ever since the Declaration of 1988, the international community had debated the contention of Palestinian Statehood; on both the political level and on the application of law level.  The fact that the UN has only granted accord to Palestine "non-member observer" State status (A/RES/67/19); as opposed fully membership endorsement.   BUT there is a rub (friction) found in the Resolution.



			
				Resolution adopted by the General Assembly 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations said:
			
		

> "Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States: an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;"



In fact, upon close examination of the Resolution (on the Status of Palestine), it does not say that there actually exists a "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967;"  BUT only "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence" on that territory.

I suppose that the very first thing that should be determined is whether or not the State of Palestine has actually emerged as having a state population, state territory, effective government.  




			
				British Yearbook of International Law-1977 said:
			
		

> *The formation of a new State is*, as will be remembered from former statements, *a matter of fact and not of law.* It is through recognition, which is a matter of law, that such new State becomes subject to International Law. As soon as recognition is given, the new State's territory is recognized as the territory of a subject of International Law, and it matters not how this territory is acquired before the recognition. I Hence also, the acquisition of territory by a new State was not regarded as a mode of acquisition of territory in international law, though revolt was a method of losing territory: 'Revolt followed by secession is a mode of losing territory to which no mode of acquisition corresponds.'
> *SOURCE:* *Page 99, IN INTERNATIONAL LAW*



Yes, that is an interesting opinion.  If statehood is a "matter of fact and not of law," THEN could you be correct?  And does that have an implication on whether or not the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is actually a state "in fact?"

*IF ---* the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" cannot exercise the powers of government because of the control exerted by the Israelis over the territory, *THEN ---* the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is not a state and therefore cannot enter into treaties.  Therefore have no case with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice.

*IF ---* the argument is that the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" have created a state (in fact) then it has exercised "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967," as reaffirmed by the General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19); *THEN ---* again have not validity in the complaint the Israel prevents independence and  self-government.

You will also notice a peculiar remark in :


			
				General Assembly Resolution 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19) said:
			
		

> Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,
> *AND*​Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and *role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people*, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;


Who actually is "recognized" by whom as the government --- reaffirmed --- representing the people of Israel in 2012.  If there is a struggle within the people of the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" --- who is it with?  It was the PLO that declared independence for the Palestinian People --- creating the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967."  If the PLO recognized as the representative to the UN in 2012, remaining so continuously to this day, then what is the relationship of the people to the PLO?  Who "is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun?"

There are lots of questions that need to be resolved. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Why don't you post the rest of his statement?
> 
> "On the other side, people are outraged by the disproportionate use of force against the Palestinians, and by *Israel's continued occupation and confiscation of Arab land."*


Why don't you tell us about "disproportional force" as it relates to defending oneself from acts of Islamic terrorism?

Why would you expect israel to react differently from others when defending itself from Islamic terrorism?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

We will have to agree to disagree.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This list only represents about half of the actual number of resolution passed that oppose Israel for one reason or the other.  This only represents evidence of two things.

•  The extraordinary number of nations that have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis of face a Muslim backlash domestically.
•  The example of the misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN, International Courts, and the extraordinary number of nations that have supported the dishonorable practice of selective enforcement in favor of the Palestinian acts of aggression and against the defense of the Jewish National Home of Israel. ​
Until such time as I see these international entities begin to: 

•  act against the terrorist legacy operations that indiscriminately launch rockets and mortars in to Israel,
•  act against the terrorist legacy operations that intentionally kidnap and murder civilians,
•  act against the terrorist legacy operations by Palestinian gunmen that attack crowds of civilians.
•  act against the terrorist legacy operations that attack buses of women and children,
•  not to mention the suicide bombings, attacks on tourist and the religious on retreat,
•  not to mention the criminal history dating back before the Olympic Massacre, or the numours airline hijackings, etc, etc, etc,   ​
Showing me how non-Jewish opponents pass resolution after resolution - condemning Israel, under the false color of law, does not change my mind one bit. In fact, logically, it is in favor of my stand.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I am often reminded that:
> 
> ...


*THEN ---​*the 1988 "State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967" is not a state and therefore cannot enter into treaties.​
What about Oslo and subsequent agreements?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I am often reminded that:
> 
> ...


I can tell by your response that you did not understand my post.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, interesting you should bring that up:

Oslo Accord I is not actually a Treaty in the sense of the internationally recognized form of international diplomacy; although it is written on the same template.  It is a formal and explicit joint statement and political announcement by multiple parties.  The OsloI is formally the "*Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DOP)." *

The DOP had a SECRET portion, had something that a normal Treaty cannot have, a SECRET addendum.  Normal Treaties are required to be transmitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations for registration or filing and recording, as the case may be, and for publication.  This would preclude SECRET addendum by definition.
(Article 102 of the UN Charter and Article 80, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties)

The Oslo II or Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Stripl, is not a treaty, but the framework and process document where by diplomatic protocols are outlined in order to reach a "lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process."  It is a "How To" document.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *THEN ---*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The SECRET addendum to Oslo I, has since been released, along with the knowledge that Yasser Arafat acknowledged that "the PLO committed to recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security, to accept UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides."  It also contains the changes to the PLO Charter that both sides agreed upon.

It should be noted that the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) (AKA: Palestinian Authority) was established in 1994 as an outcome of the Oslo peace process as the elected government.


1969 VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES 
_Article 1 Scope of the Present Convention _

The present Convention applies to treaties between States. ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

]P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, not at all.  I understood the accusation quite well.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You accused Israel of being a foreign power (Palestine because it is ruled by a foreign power at the point of a gun).  I thought it was pretty simple.  Israel is not a "foreign Power" and it does not rule "at the point of the gun;" but in response to chaos, disorder and violence initiated by the Arab Palestinians  and the leadership of a corrupt government.  "Article 42 and 43 apply Hague Regulation."

Most Respectfully, R


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't you post the rest of his statement?
> ...



Why don't you tell us why you posted only part of the UN General Secretary's statement you ZioNazi propagandist.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Why do islamo-tap dance around questions you are uncomfortable with and / or unable to address?

Why would you expect Israel to react differently to acts of Islamic terrorism than others do under similar circumstances.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Because you don't understand what a "disproportional" response is.



montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA:  excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF:  rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​At the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols, France voted against Article 51 because it deemed that paragraph 5 by its “very complexity would seriously hamper the conduct of defensive military operations against an invader and prejudice the inherent right of legitimate defense”.​If, in trying to be a humanitarian and use insufficient "shock and awe" ( military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight), then you have to keep pounding them into submission.

Don't make the mistake that this is some kind of _quid pro quo_ arrangement.  A bullet for bullet --- or --- rocket for rocket exchange.   It's not a case of they kill one of ours and I kill one of their.



			
				Malone: Untouchables (1967) Sean Connery) said:
			
		

> You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.



If you were a law enforcement officer (LEO), you would say something to the effect:  

“You shoot until the threat has stopped,” — aim for the largest “center of mass,” and engage until the threat is total incapacitate or neutralized.  “The concept is to incapacitate the threat.”

If the "threat" gets back up and fires another rocket at you, OBVIOUSLY, you did not lay down enough fire to suppress and then neutralize or incapacitate the threat from being a further danger.  If the threat gets back up because you did not bring enough firepower on target, then as the commander, that is your fault.  And your casualties suffered because you were trying to be a humanitarian may have been unnecessary.



			
				General George Patton said:
			
		

> "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."



It serve no useful purpose trying to be the humanitarian on the business of proportional in attack.  It serves no useful purpose. " When the ICRC appealed to the parties to the conflict in the Middle East in October 1973, i.e., before the adoption of Additional Protocol I, to respect the principle of proportionality in attack, the States concerned _(Egypt, Iraq, Israel and Syrian Arab Republic)_ replied favourably."  (ICRC).  But one cannot use such reservations that *the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is not achieved.*

*(∑ --- Summation)*

Between 2001 and 2015, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have fired more than 18,000 rockets and mortar into Israel.  It is obvious that Israel has not committed sufficient firepower as to suppress and incapacitate/neutralize the HoAP from being a further threat _(the concrete military advantage)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> Because you don't understand what a "disproportional" response is.
> 
> ...


5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.​
Indeed, it is Israel's Dahiya doctrine, a military plan for mass killing of civilians and mass destruction of civilian infrastructure.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.



No matter. Opinions on the definition of disproportional force will vary. When an enemy has a written manuscript delineating their intended pogrom of offensive gee-had, there really is no such response less than a willingness to crush the barbarians that will be a workable response. 

Boko Haram, Daesh, Hamas, Islamic gee-had, etc., are the same ideology  with different names.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

Yeah, you are a bit off here.

The US Politico's are extremely afraid of what the reaction _(Islamic backlash)_ will be if the US supports Israel too loudly.  It is the coercion of the domestic threat combined with the external radical Islamic threat.  Remember, HAMAS has made direct threat against the US.

While individual Americans are not easily persuaded by Jihadist, Insurgents, Terrorists, and othe asymmetric threat, American Politicos are very susceptible to intimidation to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives.  Similarly, the European Union has a similar problem, except that, there general population is intimidated as well as the ruling elite and government officials.  They know the do not have the resources or assets to conduct the counterterrorism operations the need to protect themselves from the growing Islamic terrorist threat.

Everyone knows that the very last thing they need is to place Israel in such a position, and under such pressure as to break the security containment of a very well know terrorist and jihadist threat; letting is leak out in every direction, and replaceing a thriving democracy with another threat nation that will spiral into another safe haven for any number of types or kinds or Islamic based threats.



montelatici said:


> No matter, besides the U.N., the ICC and the ICRC, even the U.S. accused Israel of using "disproportional" force.


*(COMMENT)*

"DAESH is not the first insurgency in history that has seized and governed territory using graphic violence as an instrument of power while indoctrinating and radicalizing its members. DAESH strength derives from the weakness of its adversaries and from its ability to capitalize on the failures of the Arab uprisings. The group has thrived in areas of religious polarization and state collapse: in Iraq and Syria, of course, but also in shattered Libya and post coup Egypt. It has tapped into the same jihadist narratives and networks that once fed al-Qaeda’s insurgencies, and its tactics increasingly involve the types of terrorist attacks once associated with al-Qaeda."  (The Lipman Report:  Formerly a Confidential and Private Intelligence from exclusive sources. 15SEP15)

*((QUESTIONs)*

•  Given the most recent heroic terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, what would you call an appropriate response?
•  Given that the Hostile Arab Palestinians do not follow the Law of Armed Conflict, what is the appropriate response for Israel?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > To understand what "disproportional force" (AKA:  excessive use of force), you have to understand what is meant by a "proportional response" (RUF:  rules on the use of force)[Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I].
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

If it is also  "Israel's Dahiya doctrine," (Asymmetric Warfare in an urban) then --- great.  It would be an intuitive leap.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Daniyel (Jun 10, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


That is a very good point, the thing is that when the IDF enters Gaza it is in order to disable their abilities to attack Israel (which makes it Israel's right for self defense - not theirs)
Self Defense does mean one may (should) protect himself/herself by any means necessary against unprovoked attacker.
Imagen yourself inside your home when your neighbors launching fireworks at your home from theirs, police and threats turned out ineffective, eventually you'll end up going inside their home in order to confiscate the fireworks.
The scenario is always the same..


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

Rocco,

For the first question, the appropriate response is to indict the perpetrators, bring them to trial determine guilt or innocence and then sentence them in accordance with the law if guilty.  That's what civilized societies do.  That's what France will do with the miscreants that caused all the deaths in Paris.

For the second let's begin by asserting that the Christians and Muslims of Palestine have every right to be hostile.  The land they inhabited was invaded by Europeans, colonized and more than half the population was dispossessed or killed while the other half was put under foreign rule.  Replacing the Ottoman rule with Jewish rule.  Foreign rule nonetheless.

The "Hostages Case" at the Nuremberg Trials is useful for this answer.  It resolves the question of what an Occupying Power (Germany) can do when in conflict with partisans that do not follow the "Law of Armed Conflict", i.e. not in uniform, hiding arms, killing civilians etc., and what the Occupying must do when in conflict with Partisans observing the rules, i.e. wearing uniforms, displaying arms limiting themselves to military targets etc.  In both cases the Germans were found to be guilty of committing war crimes in their response.  While the case is the precedent that was used to confirm that Gaza represents territory occupied by Israel, it provides a great resource for your second question.  For example, the punishing of relatives of the "illegal" partisans was just as much a crime as the punishing of the relatives of the "legal" partisans. Plus there is a lot more. contained in the case documents.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 10, 2016)

In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians  to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But  NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs  coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt  in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Actually, that is a direct quote from AP1:
> 
> ...



In this Wikileaks age, propagandists like Rocco are easily thwarted in their attempt to twist the facts.  the Dahiya Doctrine has nothing to do with urban warfare.  It is the tactic of considering civilian areas/villages and cities to be military if the civilian residents, including women and children are thought to support an enemy politically.  Hence, subject to leveling.  

U.S. intelligence reports/cables are quite revealing:


"1. (S)  Summary and Comment:  Within the span of several days, the Israeli Defense Force Regional Commanders made direct and frank comments in separate interviews to the press regarding the state-of-play in Israel's northern, central, and southern regions.  On the northern border, Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot described *a GOI policy to respond with indiscriminate force against Lebanon *should hostilities resume. ......

6. (S) Eisenkot labeled any Israeli response to resumed conflict the "Dahiya doctrine" in reference to the leveled Dahiya quarter in Beirut during the Second Lebanon War in 2006.  He said Israel will use disproportionate force upon any village that fires upon Israel, "causing great damage and destruction...........
Eisenkot made very clear: this is not a recommendation, but an already approved plan -- *from the Israeli perspective, these are "not civilian villages, they are military bases."*


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

MaryL said:


> In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians  to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But  NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs  coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt  in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.




The difference is that the Zionists, people from Europe, invaded Palestine.  The Germans had done the invading and had occupied most of Europe as the Zionists have occupied most of Palestine.  The Christians and Muslims of Palestine invaded no one.  On the contrary, the land they inhabited was invaded by people from another continent.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians  to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But  NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs  coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt  in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.
> ...


But cold bloodedly hunkering down deliberately amongst innocent people  as either shields or propaganda tools, that's relatively new Muslim creation. Rather cynical and nihilist , and *THAT* has got to stop if we want to get to any semblance of peace and coexistence. Israelis aren't playing that cheap little trick. Muslims aught to do the same.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

MaryL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


----------



## MaryL (Jun 10, 2016)

The only criticism of Israel, America or the west  I have in general is the heavy handed tactics addressing terrorism, sometimes I am ashamed with the overuse of violence. And it does feed into a vicious cycle. Israel is a nation fearing for it's existence, Arab countries and Muslims, I don't  know what they think they will gain by destroying Israel. They can't co-exist in peace and extend a olive branch?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > In WWII, the allies eventually targeted civilians  to stop the fascists that were doing the same thing PLUS committing genocide. But  NOW when a religiously motivated hate group deliberately hides amongst innocent civilians as a hedge, that is cynical beyond words. These thugs  coldly calculate that innocent non combatants will get hurt  in retaliatory strikes and use that as a propaganda tool to "prove" how bad their enemy is. That is so callous as to prove how totally amoral Muslim terrorist really are, but, no, lets attack Israel or America's use of drones.
> ...



Are you still whining about some " Jew invasion" that you claim happened but have never offered support for?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



Here's the debate tactic that applies to Islamic terrorists when they get their gee-had on:


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

MaryL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



That is propaganda.  There was no "hunkering down deliberately among innocent people.  It is the usual Zionist attempt to demonize the non-Jews.


Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor: “I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields.” The Guardian: “In the past week, the Guardian has seen large numbers of people fleeing different neighbourhoods.. and no evidence that Hamas had compelled them to stay.” The Independent: “Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human-shields.”Reuters, 2013: “A United Nations human rights body accused Israeli forces on Thursday of mistreating Palestinian children, including by torturing those in custody and using others as human shields.”


----------



## Hollie (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...



I'm afraid the propaganda is yours. There are multiple instances of reliable reports indicating your Islamic terrorist heroes use Arab-Moslem squatters as human shields. 

Your cheap propaganda is easily refuted. 

Run along to wiki there, little fella'


Hamas Admits to Using Civilians as Human Shields


The Associated Press reported on Friday that evidence disclosed since the end of this summer’s war between Israel and Hamas indicated that the Palestinian terror group had deliberately used civilians as human shields while launching rockets at Israeli civilians, and that even Hamas officials now admitted they had embraced the tactic. The wire bluntly noted that “discussion is not about whether the Hamas rockets were fired from civilian areas, but exactly how close they were to the actual buildings.”

Hamas officials cited by the AP defended their use of human shields by asserting that the population density of the Gaza Strip gave them little choice except to operate around civilians, a practiced codified as a war crime by the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions:

Throughout the war, the Israeli air force compiled dozens of video clips showing alleged wrongdoing by Hamas, an Islamic militant group sworn to Israel’s destruction.

These videos, many of them posted on YouTube, appear to show rockets flying out of residential neighborhoods, cemeteries, schoolyards and mosque courtyards. There are also images of weapons caches purportedly uncovered inside mosques, and tunnels allegedly used by militants to scurry between homes, mosques and buildings.


----------



## MaryL (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


 Love ya. Borders,  nations come and go and change happens, it is  the only constant  of history. The diaspora of Jews that led to Israel, came out of self preservation and a belief in a homeland.  Jews and Arabs  used to live together in harmony years ago, why not now? Because of artificial  borders and Muslim pride?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 10, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

WOW, you haven't got a clue.



montelatici said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

If you look at what I wrote, you will see I did not say "urban warfare."   I said "Asymmetric Warfare in an urban."   

asymmetric — In military operations the application of dissimilar strategies, tactics, capabilities, and methods to circumvent or negate an opponent’s strengths while exploiting his weaknesses.
Asymmetric warfare (or Asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.​
I'm not sure who wrote that report on the Dahiya Doctrine.  I'm not sure what activity within the Embassy sent the report, but if it was signed by the Ambassador, it was not an Intelligence Report.  In 2006, the paragraph markings for intelligence reports would have been much different than what you show here.  So we are looking at something else.

You may think what you like.  A low level, raw and unrefined feeder report is not evidence of anything.  A two paragraph capture of one cable out of all the intelligence reports sent from the region, with no analysis, is worthless.  

Get real.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

MaryL said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...


Jews and Arabs used to live together in harmony years ago, why not now?​
Excellent question. When we hear people talk about Zionists today they are talking about *political Zionists.* There were two different groups of Zionists in Palestine. Before about 1880, Jews immigrating to Palestine were *religious Zionists.* They would immigrate to Palestine to live and die in the holy land. They lived there like everybody else. Palestine was a multi religious place and somebody's religion was not really an issue.

Then there were the *political Zionists.* After WWI, Britain landed in Palestine with a gun in one hand and the Balfour Declaration in the other. Under Britain's coattails were the *political Zionists* who imported settlers by the boatload *with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and creating a Jewish state. *This did not sit well with the locals. Even the local Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state.

There has been war ever since.


----------



## montelatici (Jun 10, 2016)

Rocco et al,

You want the raw cable heading?   Wikileaks reformats the cables but the raw cable is also available. It's not TS/SCI but it was classified SECRET to be declassified in 2018.

S E C R E T TEL AVIV 002329 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/15/2018 TAGS: MARR, PGOV, MOPS, MCAP, IS SUBJECT: IDF REGIONAL COMMANDERS SPEAK OUT IN PRESS INTERVIEWS Classified By: DCM Luis G. Moreno, Reason 1.4 (b) (d) 1. (S)  

You really haven't understood who you are dealing with, have you? By the way, the Deputy Chief of Mission signed it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> WOW, you haven't got a clue.
> 
> ...


Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime. This is what the Dahiya Doctrine specifically calls for. Facts on the ground are  the proof of its use.

daheyya doctrin - Google Search


----------



## Coyote (Jun 10, 2016)

Daniyel said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I'm not so sure.  For example, not all civilians support Hamas' actions nor are they combatents but they are and their families are being attacked...do they just run like rabbits or defend themselves?

Daniyel, doesn't this make those distinctions of combatent/civilian/self defense/offense really fuzzy?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Then there were the *political Zionists.* After WWI, Britain landed in Palestine with a gun in one hand and the Balfour Declaration in the other. Under Britain's coattails were the *political Zionists* who imported settlers by the boatload *with the stated goal of colonizing Palestine and creating a Jewish state. *This did not sit well with the locals. Even the local Jews opposed the creation of a Jewish state.
> 
> There has been war ever since.




Yep.  Those pesky Jews got the idea that they, too, should have self-determination in their very own homeland and there has been war ever since.  Don't those pesky Jews know that self-determination is for everyone but them?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

I don, t care who you are.

I know it is not TS/SCI because nearly everything was exposed by the came from SIPRNet; migrated from ClassNet.  



montelatici said:


> Rocco et al,
> 
> You want the raw cable heading?   Wikileaks reformats the cables but the raw cable is also available. It's not TS/SCI but it was classified SECRET to be declassified in 2018.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

ALL cables from an Embassy are signed either by the Ambassador (who is usually the Country Team Chief and Chief of Mission), or the Deputy when the Ambo is not on station.  Just as cables from the Department of State are often signed by the Secretary.

This is not an Intelligence Report from the Embassy in Israel.  This is more like a Liaison Report or a Contact Report.   It was classified in accordance with the DOS Classification Guide.

PS:
I did several tours as the SSO for an Embassy RSO.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You have this partially correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Your Allegations here are:  That in 2006 Conflict with Lebanon and on the 2008/9 Conflict in the Gaza Strip, that Israel considered "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, to gain a concrete and direct military advantage. 

•  Yes, Rule #6 and Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, provide for the protection of civilians that are not direct participants.  As of now, a precise definition of the term “direct participation in hostilities” does not exist.  However, civilians working in military objectives, for example, munitions factories, do not participate directly in hostilities but must assume the risks involved in an attack on that military objective.

•  Rule #7 and  Articles 48 and 52(2) of Additional Protocol I (International Armed Conflicts Only), deals with the distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives.  Non-International Armed Conflict are related to Article 13(1) of Additional Protocol II.  The Plan of Action for the years 2000–2003, adopted by the 27th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in 1999, requires that all parties to an armed conflict respect “the total ban on directing attacks … against civilian objects”.  ​ 
Basically there are three points that need to be made:

•  Any person or facility that is directly contribution to the war effort is beyond the protections.

*   It is generally accepted that, given the realities of a protracted conflict, that civilian persons and objects may be incidentally affected by an attack directed at a legitimate military objective (AKA: Collateral Casualties/Damage).  In reality, and in the human equation, civilians may be victims of mistaken target identification or of unintended but inevitable side effects of an attack on a legitimate target in their vicinity.  And in the shadow of history, these collateral casualties and damages are accepted (and expected) under treaty and customary law only if they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

•  When Israel engages in a lawful attack, precautionary measures are required of both the attacking party and the party being attacked, in order to avoid (or at least to minimize) the collateral effects of hostilities on civilian persons, the civilian population and civilian objects.​
The protection of civilians requires positive actions by both sides; not just the Israelis.  It is extremely hard to deny that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were deliberately locating their Paramilitary and Asymmetric Operations in Densely Populated Areas, and refusing to move Civilians the vicinity of their paramilitary and jihadist operations and rocket launch sites.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SAYIT (Jun 11, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It is common knowledge that Palestinian "freedom fighters" choose civilian areas from which to launch attacks on Israel in the hope that an IDF response will provide the international community, the media and Israel/Jew haters with ammunition. Care to guess why the Indian TV crew chose to leave Gaza _before_ broadcasting their hot story?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/w...ws-rare-video-of-rocket-launch-from-gaza.html 

Shortly before a cease-fire went into effect in Gaza on Tuesday morning, a crew from India’s NDTV captured rare footage of Islamist militants quietly preparing to fire a rocket at Israel from a densely populated area of the Palestinian territory.

The video report, narrated by the correspondent Sreenivasan Jain and not broadcast until hours after he and his crew had left the Gaza Strip, appeared to show three men preparing a rocket launch site under a blue tent on Monday, covering the site with brush and leaving the area outside the journalists’ hotel. More footage, recorded 25 hours later, showed smoke from the rocket launched from that spot the next morning.

The video was notable because journalists have captured few images of the stealthy guerrilla fighters in recent weeks and because it appeared to show Islamist militants using a residential area to provide cover while they fire at Israel, putting civilians at risk as homemade rockets fly out and potential retaliatory strikes come back in.

As the British television journalist Rageh Omaar noted last weekend, the lack of visual evidence of a militant presence in Gaza appeared to be the result of an intentional effort by militants to keep a low profile, and might have intensified the focus of the foreign media on civilian casualties


----------



## Challenger (Jun 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> This only represents evidence of two things.
> 
> • The extraordinary number of nations that have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis of face a Muslim backlash domestically.
> • The example of the misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN, International Courts, and the extraordinary number of nations that have supported the dishonorable practice of selective enforcement in favor of the Palestinian acts of aggression and against the defense of the Jewish National Home of Israel.



So you have evidence that nations have been coerced into supporting the Palestinians against the Israelis and also misfeasance and malfeasance exercised by the UN and the various International Courts, courts staffed by eminent well respected jurists and trained in Western Jurisprudence? 

Care to provide links or sources to corroborate your assertions?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Oslo Accord I is not actually a Treaty in the sense of the internationally recognized form of international diplomacy...





RoccoR said:


> The Oslo II or Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Stripl, is not a treaty...



In that case the Zionists have no right to create settlements in Area C like you've argued in the past, those settlements are illegal. Area C is occupied Palestinian land and Zionist israel has yet again flouted international law, no change there then.


----------



## Daniyel (Jun 11, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


It does, but unfortunately the majority elected Hamas, if you will research some polls and opinions you'll find that the majority also supports Hamas and violence against Israel, and that same majority is what we have to deal with.
Do you think everyone in Israel support everything as well? No, does that make them less Israelis or at least not a valid targets for Hamas or Palestinians attacks? No.
In reality an objective judge would determine guilt based on the evidence he sees, and so does everyone else, in war you don't have the time to stop and ask "will he shoot me?" just because he simply will.
Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants, you know the details we already discussed them for months, what did they do? Where is the line between Israel's duty to protect Israelis over Palestinians?


----------



## Coyote (Jun 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...



I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warrented.  Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 11, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Yes, that maybe so --- or it may not be so.



Coyote said:


> I think some of those resolutions against Israel are warranted.  Israel has also been heavily protected from resolutions that other countries face for similar actions, for example, developing nuclear weapons.


*(COMMENT)*

Many allegations are very poorly supported by actual evidence.

As an example, your allegation that Israel has an absolute requirement to comply with a  treaty [Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)] to which it is NOT a party (signatory).  Many people have said, over and over again, that Israel has a Nuclear Weapons Program (NWP).  Yet, no one has actually provided any technical evidence or have actually detected the Israelis conducting a nuclear weapons test.  

POINT:   Israel cannot be in violation of a Treaty to which it is not a part.
But so many people believe it is a democratic principle to force a contractual obligation onto Israel, even though it is in no way connected to the treaty.​
Most people do not understand that a vast majority of the rumor and hearsay information they have on the alleged Israeli NWP, is more than two decades old (or older).  The Arab League want to force Israel NPT requirements on Israel to assess the defensive capability Israel might be able to project against another 1948 style combined armies attack.

On the issue of some of the Resolutions may be deserved.  Well, that may be true.  But it wasn't the point.  There is not one single condemnation by the UN on any major international terrorist attempt by the Palestinians.  Not the Palestinian Black September activity in Jordan, not the Munich Massacre, not the many airline hijacks, not the numerous suicide bombings, etc, etc, etc.  Similarly, there has been no Resolution condemning the kidnap and murder of Israeli civilians, the tunnels infiltrating Israel, the seaborne infiltration attempts by armed Jihadist, etc etc etc.  And, there has been very little said about the Arab Palestinian Rocket and Mortar attacks.

The point was about the selective enforcement.  IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, _(as our friend P F Tinmore points out)_, THEN why is it concentrating on Israel?  IF no member of the Arab League is contemplating an attack_ (like the 1973 Yom Kipper Attack)_, THEN why should they be worried? 

The throughout the entire region of the North Africa _(Gibraltar to the Suez Canal)_, down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade.  YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Jun 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> Yes, that maybe so --- or it may not be so.
> 
> ...



Thing is - if we really wanted to look for evidence of Israel's nuclear capabilities, I think we'd find the evidence.  I think there is a lack of desire to look for it due to Israel's strategic importance as an ally.  Meanwhile, other nations who are also not signatories of a non-proliferation agreement get sanctioned.

I think when you frame the issue in a "David and Goliath" format - ie, the only "Jewish National Home" in the world -then you're obsuring it with an appeal to emotion that deliberately buries what are real issues - for example the justice system and how it treats Palestinians or non-Jewish Israeli's compared to Jewish Israeli's, as well as it's laws on land confiscation that favors Jewish residents and works against Palestinians (absentee land owner laws etc.)....all that gets brushed under the carpet because Israel is "the only Jewish national homeland".

One other thing....this is something I don't know much about.  I thought UN resolutions were aimed at nations..not militant groups....or non-national entities....????


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 12, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Actually, there are 4 UN members have never been a party to the treaty:

•  India
•  Pakistan
•  South Sudan
•  Israel

There is also the right to withdraw:

*Article X  NPT *

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.​


Coyote said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Relative to the Treaty itself, there are two categories:

Signatories:
•  Non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
•  Nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
States not Party to the Agreement
•  States that have withdrawn
•  States that declined the Agreement​


			
				EXCERPT:  Israeli Nantional News SEPT 2013 - IAEA Discussion said:
			
		

> *IAEA: Anti-Israel Resolution Narrowly Defeated*
> Israel is widely assumed to have nuclear weapons but has never acknowledged it and is not a signatory to the landmark Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
> 
> The Jewish state is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency but is not subject to IAEA inspections except for at a small research facility.
> ...



While most people are lead to believe that Israel is not inspected at all, that would be a misinformation.  The  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Integrated Nuclear Safety Assessment of Research Reactors (INSARR) mission was held in Israel [Soreq Nuclear Research Center (SNRC)] from 7 to 11 July 2013.  I would also like to bring your attention to the *IAEA GOV/2010/49-GC(54)/14 Date: 3 September 2010:  Israeli Nuclear Capabilities*.

The IAEA, by its nature, is a nosey agency.  Israel, because of the intense interest by the Arab League, is by its nature a secretive agency.   If the State of Israel is attacked by the Arab League, Israel knows NOT to expect allied assistance.  The Jewish People did not get allied forces assistance during the Holocaust, it did not get allied military engagement during the 1948 War for Independence --- and it did not get allied military assistance after the sneak attack by the Arabs in 1973.  THUS, Israel's details of its national defense strategies are its own affair; not for foreign examination.  The one aspect that has not changed, is the assessment best expressed by the US Joints Chiefs of Staff on the *JSCM-373-67 in the Memorandum* to the SECDEF:



			
				EXCERPT General Earle Wheeler said:
			
		

> From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of come captured territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders.  Determination of territory to be retained should be based on accepted tactical principles such as control of commanding terrain, use of natural obstacles elimination of enemy held salients, and provisions of defense in depth for important facilities and installations.



There is no reasonable expectation that with time, the threat potential presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians and selected elements of the Arab League will diminish.  All the parties to the Arab League attack in 1948 have not yet reached a peaceful accommodation _(Egypt and Jordan notable exceptions)_.  There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past.  Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify.  Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.  

THUS, there is absolutely NO reason that Israel should allow any outside inspection effort that could observe any critical facilities and essential installations to Israel's national defense.

Most Respectfully,
R

PS:  This is a little index of *National Security Archive Electronic Archive material.*


----------



## Challenger (Jun 13, 2016)

Daniyel said:


> Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants



If the IDF can do this:


There can be no justification for this:


----------



## Challenger (Jun 13, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The point was about the selective enforcement. IF the UN is not going to complain about the Russians in the Crimea, or the Chinese in Tibet, _(as our friend P F Tinmore points out)_, THEN why is it concentrating on Israel?...



What selective enforcement? Zionist Israel gets a "get out of jail free" card when it flouts international law, Russia gets UN condemnation UNGA 68/262 General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases as for China and Tibet General Assembly Adopts Resolution Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases

Perhaps Zionist Israel is the biggest violator of international law on the planet


----------



## Challenger (Jun 13, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The throughout the entire region of the North Africa _(Gibraltar to the Suez Canal)_, down the eastern coast of Africa and the Western coast of Arabia, and from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, it has been the Radicalized Muslims, the Sunni - Shiite Conflict, the Islamic Jihadist, and the various other Muslim inspired activities that have created the vast majority of unrest for the last four decade. YET, all anyone can complain about is the country with the highest rating on the Human Development Index and the only Jewish National Home in the world.



None of that is relevant in the Israel-Palestine forum, look at the "Middle East- General" and "Africa" forums here and you'll find lots of complaints about "Muslim jihadists", etc. So stop trying to deflect from the topic, you make yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants
> ...



Apologetics for your islamic terrorist heroes makes you look like quite the fool. 

During the first half of 2014 there were more than 4,000 rockets fired at israel. Islamic terrorism carries consequences. Your apparent insistence that acts of war by Islamic terrorists are to be granted an exception from retaliation and reprisal are nonsensical and pointless. 

Further, you seem to have some silly notion that a precision munition going through a window will not level an entire building. There's no requirement that precision strikes do nothing more than ruffle the blinds and leave an islamo-stain on the carpet. High explosive infidel munitions can't discriminate between Islamic terrorists and the civilians / infrastructure your heroes use as cover.

There's a solution that Islamic terrorists can employ to avoid becoming a red stain. Can you guess what that solution is?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Daniyel said:
> 
> 
> > Israel however tried beyond anyone else to separate civilians and combatants
> ...




The false assumption here is that it is possible to accomplish the former in each and every case.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Want to bet, as all it would take is a 3 year old child in a buggy that is really a suicide bomb. Then the IDF get the word that this is happening so they give warnings before opening fire. And for the record this happened a few years back when a family went to visit a sick relative in an Israeli hospital. Now you know why the IDF stop everyone trying to enter Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What's a civilian?  What's a combatent?  Is it EVER ok to target civilians?  If you target a military installation, knowing there will be huge civilian casualties...is that justified?








 Depends on how many others will be saved by doing so is the answer. As in WW2 when the allies bombed the German nuclear laboratories with the deaths of thousands of civilian workers. For every civilian that died then, 2000 were saved by all accounts


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 How about looking at America's abysmal history of such events, how many died in Dresden or the other major cities on the push to Berlin. How many died in Japan when the atom bombs were dropped, and remember to count those dying now from the radiation. Or how about Korea when the civilians were pounded from afar. Lastly the war America wants to ignore Vietnam when drugs were handed out to soldiers to numb the pain, and turned them into psychopaths.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 14, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Daniyel said:
> ...



Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 14, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past. Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify. Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.



What utter drivel. Zionist Israel needs nukes to combat "hostile"Palestinians who are going to "annihilate" them....





...yeah, right, whatever. 

There is no member of the Arab league or combination of members of the Arab league that has the military capability to take on Zionist Israel now or in the foreseeable future; the US has made that a certainty with their "qualitive edge" and material support.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 14, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...








 Ever thought that the last two clips show that Israel does everything in its power to minimise civilian casualties. While hamas wants the maximum civilian casualties it can get


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 14, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > There is no reason to assume that Arab threats from all quarters will rise over time, given the rise in Jihadism, Islamic Extremism, Palestinian and other Arab Terrorism, and the Western communities that are attempting to diminish Israeli national defense and security through the malfeasance under the color of law; a reoccurring pattern of Jewish Persecution duplicated over time in the past. Israel knows this, but does not play the virtual victim on the level the Arab Palestinians exemplify. Israel just quietly prepares for the next attempt at annihilation.
> ...








 Gere we go again with rat boy bringing the threat of nukes, so he can claim that the Zionists are making the threats.


The combined forces of Islam along with their nuclear weapons could wipe out Israel in one day, so I don't know were you get your drivel from.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 14, 2016)

Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips? [/quote]

Well, THAT is an interesting question.  You are suggesting that it is possible, not just for Israel, but for every nation in the world, to conduct warfare such that no civilians are killed and that all targeting is precise and takes out only the military objective - whether it be a hostile enemy, a munitions store, a base of operations, a tunnel, etc -- even if those military objectives are placed in close proximity to civilians.  Wow.  That is a tall order.  Do you really think that is currently possible?  Would you hold all nations to that same standard?  If we were to hold all nations to that same standard, should the nation which has been most successful at achieving this high standard not be held in esteem for achieving it?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?



Well, THAT is an interesting question.  You are suggesting that it is possible, not just for Israel, but for every nation in the world, to conduct warfare such that no civilians are killed and that all targeting is precise and takes out only the military objective - whether it be a hostile enemy, a munitions store, a base of operations, a tunnel, etc -- even if those military objectives are placed in close proximity to civilians.  Wow.  That is a tall order.  Do you really think that is currently possible?  Would you hold all nations to that same standard?  If we were to hold all nations to that same standard, should the nation which has been most successful at achieving this high standard not be held in esteem for achieving it?[/QUOTE]

We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena,   Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it not possible in each and every case, especially given the latter two clips?
> ...



We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena,   Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.[/QUOTE]






 Chalk and cheese, as the IRA did not target children in the UK with illegal weapons. If they had then you can bet that the British government would have evacuated the protestants and then carpet bombed these areas. A lot of the bloodshed in N.I. went unreported, and people never heard about the ears collected by certain British squaddies or the IRA murderers found in the sewers


----------



## Shusha (Jun 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> We are. We've had 30+ years of shootings, bombing, rocket and mortar attacks against both civillian and military targets, and we never once carpet bombed Belfast, Crossmaglen, Lisburn, Ballymena,   Londonderry or anwhere else the PIRA operated. Almost 4000 dead and ten times that amount wounded or injured and we still managed to achieve a peacful settlement without resorting to using massed artillery and armour, RAF fighter-bombers to pulverise civillians; it's what real democracies do.



I will admit that the IRA is not my area of expertise.  So, please explain to me how you see this as being relevant or equivalent to the conflict in Gaza.  In particular, please explain which specific counter-terrorist strategies the British use to effectively control, eliminate or mitigate harm from terrorism and how you would apply that to Israel.  

For example, if you see police action and arresting of suspected terrorists as one of the techniques used by the British, how would you apply that to Israel?  Would you suggest Israel maintain a police presence in Gaza?  And if so, do you see that as problematic in terms of peacefully resolving the conflict?  

For example, if you see economic restraints as viable and successful counter measure, how would you apply that to Israel?  How would that improve the situation?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 15, 2016)

Challenger

I've been reading a thesis which attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of various counter-terrorist measures, using the IRA and the Troubles as examples.  Interesting reading. The author contends there are three ways to effectively counter terrorism:

1.  Address the terrorists motivations as well as their capabilities
2.  Create a wedge between extremists and moderates, creating positive incentives for the moderates to cease violence
3.  Address the underlying issues of the people the terrorists propose to represent

The problem I see with the Israel/Arab Muslim Palestine conflict is with the third aspect.  The underlying issue is that the Arab Muslim Palestinians (particularly those in Gaza) utterly reject any Jewish sovereignty on any of the territory.  Its a zero sum -- us or them -- game for them. Clearly, this can not be "addressed" by Israel as it demands the destruction of any sort of Jewish self-determination or sovereignty in the Jewish homeland.

I can not convince you, a British subject with no "dog" in the fight, to support a Jewish sovereign nation -- how are we (the Jewish people) to convince the Arab Muslim Palestinians to so radically change their entrenched ideology, especially when it is based not just in politics but deeply rooted in the religious faith?

Thus, we are, at the moment, "stuck" with having to address the terrorists capabilities.  And possibly to create some positive incentives for moderates in Gaza, though I'm not convinced there is enough of those to turn the tides.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I am often reminded that:
> 
> ...


Your claim that "Palestine" is rule by a "foreign power" raises the question of statehood and puts certain protections at risk.​
And my claim is correct.

*ARTICLE 1*

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.​
*a ) a permanent population*
Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.

*b ) a defined territory*
Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.

*c ) government*
Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.

*d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a ridiculous argument.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


​*(COMMENT)*

Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed.  This is, in technical terms, a  “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty _(as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory")_.  Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state.  I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.

Think about this for a minute...  Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state.  No it doesn't work like that.  



P F Tinmore said:


> *a ) a permanent population*
> Israel's "permanent population" was not native to the land. The Zionists imported settlers as part of their colonial project. These were not immigrants. Immigrants go to a country to be a part of that country. They have the same rights as the natives. Colonists come to be a separate people and do not have those same rights.


*(COMMENT)*

•  Where does statehood or sovereignty require the status of an "indigenous" "permanent population?"  
•  The Allied powers, through the Mandate, facilitated immigration and citizenship to all Jewish People willing to establish a Jewish National Home.
•  This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.



P F Tinmore said:


> *b ) a defined territory*
> Israel has never had a defined territory. It sits inside Palestine's international borders by military force.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was initially identified as the Jewish State by the UN Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP) in the 1947 Recommendations to the General Assembly.  The outline for the partition was adopted.  On the withdrawal of the Mandatory Power, the Provisional Government Declared Independence.  However, the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee attempted to overthrow the government of Israel by invading the former Mandate territory.  Today, while the pro-Hostile Arab-Palestinians attempt to argue on a theoretical basis that Israel has no borders, in fact, there is ample physical evidence on the ground of a exclusive authority over the territory bounded by a recognized demarcation.

NOTE:  State of Palestine, even the 1988 State of Palestine, has no exclusively controlled territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> *c ) government*
> Israel's government was founded by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. A government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. The Israeli government was created in opposition of the vast majority of the people.


*(COMMENT)*

Actually the Jewish Agency was conceptualized by the Allied Powers, and required by the Allied Powers to be recognized by Zionist Organization.  (The Jewish Agency was not created and inserted into to the Mandate by the WZO.)  Israel is a parliamentary democracy.  However, there is no requirement for the State to derive its legitimacy from the people.  Saudi Arabia (as an example) is a Monarchy, its legitimacy is passed on generationally by blood.



P F Tinmore said:


> *d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.*
> Political power has denied this right to the Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

No...  The Arab Palestinians have not exercised such control that was necessary to establish peace and security.  

How many times have you heard the Pro-Arab Palestinians say something derogatory about the Jewish People, or vindictive and uncomplimentary about the Israeli -- or commit a violent and/or destructive act  -- justify it by saying the Israelis had 'made' the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) mad?​The HoAP are forever attempting to pursue some hostile agenda or action, using the excuse that the Israelis are preventing them achieving their "rights."   The perpetual victim. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a ridiculous argument.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree that this is what the "Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States of 1933" conveyed. This is, in technical terms, a “declaratory” assignment of sovereignty _(as in: "Declarative Theory" vs "Constitutive Theory")_. Basically it says that I'm a state because I say I'm a state. I'm a state whether you recognize me as a state -- or -- not.​

Indeed, the Declarative Theory along with the Theory of Popular Sovereignty are the dominant theories in contemporary international law.

Eighty or so Palestinian officials declared independence in 1948 from the Mandate that left in the preceding months. They declared independence on their own land, inside their own international borders, and in the name of the Palestinians who were Palestine's legal "permanent population." They had every right to declare independence. They were recognized as a state by five other states and many in the "East" and elsewhere still recognize Palestine as a state.

They could not exercise their rights because they were under occupation.

Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.​
Hold on there, Rocco, you are just saying that without thinking. Can the French declare statehood in Britain?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is a ridiculous argument.
> 
> ...


• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​
You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the *right* to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm glad you agree.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this for a minute... Then anyone --- anywhere --- can call themselves a state. No it doesn't work like that.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory before the Arabs Palestinian, then the All Palestine Government claim does not cover the territory to which the Israeli exercised self-determination. 

•  This entire idea that Israel is inside the former territory under Mandate, and therefore is somehow corrupted, is bogus.  The former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was not sovereign territory under the authority of exclusive jurisdiction of any ArabPalestinian Authority.

•  The All Palestine Government had no defined territory, as it had no exclusive jurisdiction of any former territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.​This is all a long-standing attempt by Arab Palestinians to try and establish some prior claim over the territory and to deny the right of self-determination to the Jewish People who followed the Steps Preparatory to Independence valid at the time of the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I'm glad you agree.
> 
> ...


So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​
Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination.  No one has argued against that.  But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People.  The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago.   The doctrine of _inter-temporal law  ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] _has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward.  That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Again, this is nonsense.
> 
> ...


Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​
Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, you have it wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> So, since the Israelis declared Independence over the territory​
> Not "the territory," Palestinian territory. Israel cannot claim that territory just by say so.


*(COMMENT)*

It was NOT Palestinian territory.  It was territory formerly under the Mandate to Palestine.  No only did the Israelis make a Declaration of Independence, the process leading up to that was based on the UN Step Preparatory to Independence, and then the State of Israel had to fight a war of independence with the aggressor nation of the Arab League as well as the irregular forces (Asymmetric) of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.

It was never under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arabs.  The rights and title were surrendered to the Allied Powers by the former sovereign to the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, you have it wrong.
> 
> ...


Making an argument that is based on the assumption it was "Palestinian Territory" will lead you astray every time.​
So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I have always claim that the "right to self-determination" is the same for all peoples.  There is no authority that gives the Arab Palestinians the right to usurp Israeli territory.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

That was never danced around.  The Israelis declared independence BEFORE the Arab Palestinians over the territory that was recommended by the UN.

What I have said, is that people like you cannot apply 21st Century Law or Concepts (Resolution adopted by the *General Assembly 61/295 **13 September 2007* United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples)(DRIPS) to  processes decided in the 20th Century --- _inter-temporal law  ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] .  _It is NOT applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.



(Well, "belong" is not the right word but...)  

ALL the citizens -- not just the Arab Muslim citizens.  There were (are) TWO groups of citizens living in the territory attempting to achieve some sort of self-determination.  The right to sovereignty belongs to both groups of "Palestinians".


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is a very serious mistake.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is no law by any agency that has granted sovereignty to the Arab Palestinians to any section of territory formerly under the Mandate of Palestine.  The UN did:  "Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; in A/RES/67/19 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly - Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/12/2012).  Can you show me something after 4 December 2012 that updates this affirmation?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I have always claim that the "right to self-determination" is the same for all peoples.  There is no authority that gives the Arab Palestinians the right to usurp Israeli territory.
> 
> ...


That was never danced around. The Israelis declared independence BEFORE the Arab Palestinians over the territory that was recommended by the UN.​
You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.



Oh, give me a break.  If that were true, then Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq are not States either.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.



And furthermore, the "Palestinians" did not cede their land to anyone.  One group of "Palestinians" achieved sovereignty.  And one group is still failing to achieve sovereignty.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.
> ...


Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.



P F Tinmore said:


> Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else. 

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Citizenship makes everyone equal.
> 
> ...


Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.



That's a sword which cuts both ways though.  If you want to say that the only "legitimate Palestinians" are those who lived in the territory prior to 1923, or 1900 or 1850 or 1782 or 200 BCE or whatever number you want to assign to the problem, that's all fine and dandy but you must apply it equally to both sides.  

And the problem with THAT is you still end up with two groups of "Palestinians" -- the Jewish people and the Arab Muslim people.  (Well, unless you want to go back far enough that it was JUST the Jewish people but I assume you don't want to go that far back).  And both those groups of "Palestinians" have rights to self-determination and sovereignty over the territory.  And part of sovereignty is permitting immigration, or not.  

You simply can not require rights for one group while denying them to the other.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 It was in 1948 as the International laws of the time prevailed and made them all native.

 The LoN defined the territory in 1922 and that was the territory that Israel claimed


Delineating the final geographical area of Palestine designated for the Jewish National Home on September 16, 1922, as described by the Mandatory:


PALESTINE


INTRODUCTORY.


POSITION, ETC.


Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30º N. and 33º N., Longitude 34º 30’ E. and 35º 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows: -

_ North_. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

_ East_. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

_ South_. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza-Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

_ West_. – The Mediterranean Sea.


 No it was founded by the Jews with the legal right under international laws to do so

 LIAR as they enter into negotiations and then run away when they don't get what they demand




 Want to try again only this time don't twist the facts to suit your POV.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 They were not Palestinians but Egyptians, they tried to claim land already claimed and so lost. Nothing to do with being occupied as they had no legal rights to the lands in the first place. Read the treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne for an explanation.

The only reason the arab league did this is because they knew they were losing the war they started and were due to end up looking ineffective fools. I guess nothing changes.


 Yes they can and have, only to be denied by the British. The old might is right maxim, you hold on to what you own or die trying.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 On the land they currently possess, and that is all. They cant claim your home in the US is part of Palestine for example. And until they accept the full terms of those UN resolutions and agree peace and mutual borders their possible lands are getting smaller each year.   They have partial sovereignty because to go the whole way would result in a loss of all monies, and having to give up violence and terrorism for peace and work. They are the ones negating their own rights as you cant hand them sovereignty if they don't have the power to put it to use.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 That is right Israel declared first over the territory that was the former Mandate of Palestine as was their legal right under International law and the UN charter. The arab muslims had no legal right to that land as they had denied UN res 181 many times, and then invaded the Mandate of Palestine because they wanted the whole of the M.E. for an islamonazi caliphate. 

They had no legal reasons to support their claims, and still don't as the laws giving the land to the Jews are still in existence


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








 What rights and when did they become rights, or is this another attempt at using 2010 international laws retrospectively back in 1920.  When will you stop doing this, when it looks like you will be made homeless, stateless and unwanted by everyone.
 Under the international laws of the time no arab muslim rights were violated by the Mandate or the declaration by Israel in 1948


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.
> ...







 Just go back to 1099 and you see that there were no arab muslims extant in Palestine. Then you see that the Jews have existed on the land uninterrupted for over 4,500 years, followed by the Roman Christians with under 2,000 years and finally the arab muslims who existed for just 22 years as sovereign owners of the land. The historical evidence proves that the arab muslims flooded Palestine in the years between 1920 and 1967 as there is no way a third world nation could manage a population increase better than that of a civilised nation with full health benefits and aftercare. According to team Palestine every female between the ages of 12 and 50 gave birth to triplets every year and not one person died of any causes during that period.


 You forget these are Nazi's we are dealing with and they can refuse certain groups their rights as they hate them with a vengance


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 No that is your claim in regards to the arab muslims. As we keep telling you the Jews had exactly the same rights as the arab muslims, just that they exercised them within the laws. It is your false claim every time you are shown that the arab muslims have done themselves no favours to say we give the Jews more rights. Well now I am calling you out on your claim, produce the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Prove we give the arab muslims less rights under the international laws of the time, and so give the Jews more rights.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Why do you keep blabbering on about religion? This is not a religious conflict It is about foreign colonialism in Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 So who did it belong to before the UN was invented ?   Who was the sovereign owners of the mandate of Palestine between 1917 and 1945. Who enacted all the Laws, printed the money, issued passports and looked after the postal service ?      Who was it that ran this fantasy nation of Palestine that has never existed until 1988, and then in name only


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Very naive statement.  Why does every intifada always start with some kind of provocation having to do with the al-Aksa Mosque, or whatever it's called, on the Temple Mount?  I was in Israel, and the Arabs complain on TV talk-shows that Jews shouldn't go on the Temple Mount.  Intifadas don't start because of check-points.  Everything in the Middle East has to do with religion.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Nonsense. Obviously, you're hoping to sidestep the fact that so many of the islamic terrorist franchises occupying the disputed territories use "Islamic" and / or  "gee-had" in the surnames of their murderous boys clubs. 

You may hope to ignore the fact that Islamic terrorism is tied directy to Islamic ideology but others are able to be honest about the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

You might even take a moment to review the Hamas Charter. You will find it makes appeals to several concepts that are central to muhammedan ideology: _waqf_ and insensate Jew hating.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > So you are saying that Palestine did not belong to the Palestinian citizens? Sovereignty belongs to the Palestinians as UN resolutions affirm.
> ...








And the LoN way back in 1923 separated Palestine into two separate entities, which they called arab muslim Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The largest portion was for all the arab muslims that could not live in peace with the other occupants and was named trans Jordan. This left just 28% of the original Palestine for the Jewish National home. This means that the Jews have a prior and greater claim to sovereignty over that 28% and the arab muslims a greater claim over the other 72%


----------



## José (Jun 16, 2016)

> Originally posted by *ForeverYoung432*
> Very naive statement.  Why does every intifada always start with some kind of provocation having to do with the al-Aksa Mosque, or whatever it's called, on the Temple Mount?  I was in Israel, and the Arabs complain on TV talk-shows that Jews shouldn't go on the Temple Mount.  Intifadas don't start because of check-points.  Everything in the Middle East has to do with religion.



If the conflict is not about the right to live in Lydda, Ashkelon, Haifa, etc, what are you waiting to tear down the wall, remove the barbed wire fences, the minefields, the machine gun nests?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 When did it become their land then, as prior to 1917 it was Ottoman land and post 1917 it was LoN land. The arab muslim Palestinians had never owned that land, in fact they lost all rights to it when the Ottomans lost the war.

 produce the international treaty made between 1917 and 1948 that ceded the land to the arab muslims. And it must state nation of Palestine and Islamic ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are shoveling crap. The UN had no authority to give Palestinian land to anybody. Remember, "recommended" did not happen. Resolution 181 was never implemented. The Palestinians refused to cede their land. Case closed.
> ...








 This is what he cant understand as they were created the same way that Israel was created, so if Isreal does not exist then neither do any of these Islamic nations.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...








 It has everything to do with religion, and the foreign colonists are the arab muslims who had no rights to be there. The Jews were invited by the lands legal sovereign owners to migrate and settle on the land. The arab muslims were not, and still they came illegally.


 Now explain again how in 1917 the arab muslims in Palestine hade a 1% population growth, then in 1918 it has increased to 20%


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 That is right so the arab muslims are not Palestinians then are they. But the Jews are as they were invited to migrate and settle.

 On this subject who invited you to migrate to the USA ?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Well, Tinmore's grandparents migrated to America, but it's not like Tinmore's family had been in America since the 1700's.  And even in the 1700's, the Native Americans were there first.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore.  In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge at the center of the protracted theme since the time Hypatia of Alexandria faced religious zealots in the Agora of Alexandria.Just as Hypatia's death marked the beginning of the end for Alexandria as the center of scholastic achievement.

The Arab Palestinians have not made the difficult choices and key decisions that would have advanced their society and culture; and should be experiencing the consequences of those poor decisions.



Phoenall said:


> On this subject who invited you to migrate to the USA ?


*(COMMENT)*

These flights of fancy, where the Arab Palestinians think that they are above the normal stages of progression that the great sovereignties like China, India, most of Africa and certainly Europe had experienced.  The Arab Palestinians pull this term "rights" and the theory that the world owes them something special because they have these "rights."

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are so deep into the belief that these rights somehow are unique to them, and supercede that rights of all others, that they have special entitlements.  Trying to lay some measure of logic to their position and debate the issues is simply out of the question.

Much of what the HoAP attempt to lay down as a basis for their convictions is much like trying to assign some deeper meaning to the Lyrics of "I am the Walrus." (1967)

I am the eggman,
.........................they are the eggmen
.......................................................I am the walrus,
goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo gooooooooooo jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba​
You just cannot get their from here! _ (That is --- not without some mind and conscious altering substance.)_

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore.  In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge at the center of the protracted theme since the time Hypatia of Alexandria faced religious zealots in the Agora of Alexandria.Just as Hypatia's death marked the beginning of the end for Alexandria as the center of scholastic achievement.
> 
> ...


Denigrate the natives.

Standard colonialist propaganda ploy.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> ...








 The natives happened to be Jewish and Christian as well, so why has the largest body done the least out of all 3 when it had such a promising start ?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The Arab Palestinians pull this term "rights" and the theory that the world owes them something special because they have these "rights."
> 
> The Hostile Arab Palestinians are so deep into the belief that these rights somehow are unique to them, and supercede that rights of all others, that they have special entitlements.  Trying to lay some measure of logic to their position and debate the issues is simply out of the question.



I have absolutely no issue with the concept that Palestinists have "rights".  Not only do I have no problem with it -- I agree. 

*The problem is with the hypocrisy of insisting on rights for one group while vehemently denying them for the other. * Its a social injustice that I just can't tolerate, akin to supporting the oppression of women, or denying civil rights to people of color, or prohibiting marriage to non-cis, non-hetero people.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh, I think you made a mistake here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Allied Powers generally were concerned about the "civil" and "religious." 

•   Where (in 1922 International Law) were the "Human Rights define and binding?
•  At the end of the Great War (WWI), what entity held the rights and title to the entire Middel East Region?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh, I think you made a mistake here.
> 
> ...


Rights are inherent. They are not handed out by people in power. If that was the case, nobody would have any.

The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights. They also say that these rights predate their resolutions.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh come now.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In 1922, the rights that were protected were those as stipulated in the Mandate was explicit to cite.

*TWO POINTS: * 

Surely, the Arab Palestinian did not have inherent rights under the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire.   The Ottoman Sultan was the absolute ruler of the territory and the dominion at large.   Nor was there such a thing as "inherent rights" within the Empires of China and Japan.  When did man and the human community at large  accept the idea of "inherent rights?"  The notion of inherent rights has a specific starting point for each culture that adopted the notion.  Even today, the notion that there are inherent rights is at variance to Sharia and governments within the Islamic community.  Does the Grand Ayatollah (Supreme Leader of Iran and Muslim Cleric) have authority  to circumvent "inherent rights."  And does the Supreme Leader of North Korea have the powers inherent rights?

When did the Islamic World adopt the concept of "inherent rights?"  Does the Arab League affirm that "inherent rights" are above that of Islamic Law?  ​
Like I said before, the Arab Palestinian draw that term like a gun.  The problem is, that they are effectively using a concept that they as Muslims, do not agree with.  Clearly the Sunni and the Shi'ite do not perceive the other in the same light.

No, when the Arab Palestinian comes to accept that a "right" is not a handout, and that it confers no territory or authority, then they will start to understand what it means to "exercise a right."  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh come now.
> 
> ...




Of course that ducks the question.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



It's actually comical how you rattle on with such whining about "inherent rights" when your Islamic terrorist Arab-Moslem heroes know no such concept.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 NICE DUCK  but wont work

 Does this mean I have the right to kill all muslims because sometime in the future that may be an actual right ?

 You cant retrospectively use international laws unless you have a cut of point, and that point is agreed to be the date of implementation. Rights exist at a point in time and did not exist before they were granted by a higher authority with the power to enforce them. That is the deciding factor, not your plaintive crying that the rights were violated before they had them.

 Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this ?
 They got them when a higher authority granted them of course, and in the case of UN resolutions these are not enforceable being simple recommendations and need to be ratified by an even higher authority before becoming international laws.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...






 No your dancing around and posting islamonazi talking points ducks the questions because you know they are 100% right.


----------



## westwall (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







The closest hospital is over a quarter of a mile away.  the other hospital is over a mile away.   That is not considered close proximity.  I will grant you that in WWII it was.  But no more.  Unless you are firing indiscriminate rockets that is.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Where have I ever mentioned "Arab Muslims?"

It is you who is always trying to insert religion into a colonial problem.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 17, 2016)

westwall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it. Perhaps the US could give it PGKs to help level the playing fiield?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?​
Sure, no problem.

*Guided*
* by the purposes and principles of the Charter,*


*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:

(_a_) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(_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;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore.  In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge at the center of the protracted theme since the time Hypatia of Alexandria faced religious zealots in the Agora of Alexandria.Just as Hypatia's death marked the beginning of the end for Alexandria as the center of scholastic achievement.
> 
> ...


Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore. In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge, blah, blah, blah.​
Holy load of crap, Batman.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Nothing to do with religion just showing where the violence is coming from. It is not arab Christians or arab Jews that start the violence is it.    But you constantly bring religion into the equation by claiming that the Jews have no right to exist in Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 WHY ?   what would that do apart from see gaza destroyed completely. The need is to rid them of all weapons so they cant kill Jews and get morons to support them when they complain about the retaliation.   Even with more accurate weapons the betting is they would target children, and what would your view on that be  ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> ...









 NO 1000% fact and supported by evidence on this board. You believe anything that takes away the rights of the Jews and then try to say that the rights of the arab muslims have been taken away.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK, the let's make it simple for you.



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course that ducks the question.


*(REFERENCE)*

*What are human rights?*
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.​*Universal and inalienable*
The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the *Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948* _(never converted or adopted into law)_, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.​*THE QUESTION:*  At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

*THE ANSWER:*  At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.

*(COMMENT)*

There is no right that is unique to the Palestinians.  There is no right that the Palestinians have that the Jewish People do not.  And there is no right that gives anything specific to any one people (including the Palestinians).


•  The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights.​√  Point of clarification:​∆   Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings; including Jews and Arab Palestinins.
∆   Jews and Arab Palestinians are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.​
The *standard list of rights* _(the long list)_ is a huge and chaotic list, most of which did not go into force _(as a matter of law)_ until:  1976

•  *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights*
   (CESCR)
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 3 January 1976,
[​•  *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*
   (CCPR)
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976,​
Having said this, it is relatively unimportant.  RIGHTS DO NOT CONFER ANYTHING UPON A PEOPLE.  There is embedded in the RIGHTS _(A/HRC/RES/27/21)_ is the belief that no State  (including the Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of any type of measure, including but not limited to economic or political measures, to coerce another State (including Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind.  YET, the Israeli People must defend against the underlying unilateral coercive measures presented by the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinians.  The fact that the Jewish People have the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity under International Law does not prevent the HoAP from attempt to coercively subordinate and drive-out the Israeli people.  Every day the Israelis are required to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures; defending their rights against the Jihadist activities of the HoAP.

You and the HoAP cannot use the issue of Palestinian RIGHTS to defend or justify you Jihadist and radicalized Islamic Activity to coerce Israel.  The fact that the HoAP have "rights" does not give any special claim to the HoAP over the territory renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and transferred  title and right to the Allied Power.

Finally, law is not retroactive.  The 1976 "rights" do not apply to actions and decisions made in 1967 _(a decade earlier)_.

*(BIGGER ANSWER)*

The rights of the Arab Palestinian were conferred upon them at the same time as the right of the Jewish People were conferred.  And the rights of the HoAP do not include the right to interfere with the rights of the Jewish People to establish their National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,

No, this is NOT CORRECT.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Neither of these Resolutions are binding.  They have not entered into law. 

These passages cite, in derivative fashion, the UN Charter by extrapolation.  And if you cite the principle, you understand that the 1945 is about maintaining peace and security; and NOT supportive of the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.  Nor is it supportive of the Arab Palestinian that believe Jihad and armed resistance are the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian people, having declared themselves as hostile jihadist, cannot use, under the false color of law, these resolutions to infiltrate for the purposes of pursuing Jihad and armed struggle.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, the let's make it simple for you.
> 
> ...


*THE QUESTION:​*At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

*THE ANSWER:* At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.​
The standard clunker in your argument is that a colonial project has more rights than the natives.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> No, this is NOT CORRECT.
> 
> ...


Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​
The Palestinians have the right to make that decision. They have the right to territorial integrity. Nobody else has the right to hack up their country.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



"Palestine" was never an independent country to begin with, and this was an exclusive, extraordinary case.  Like Netanyahu said,  "Jews in Israel can't be compared to Belgians in the Congo."  (And, by the way, the Congo has been involved in a vicious civil war since the Belgians left.)  The Jews gave the Bible to the world from that region, whether you call it Israel or Palestine.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, a misrepresentation of the facts.  I think if you go back and look --- you'll find I said nothing of the kind.


RoccoR said:


> √  Point of clarification:​∆   Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings; including Jews and Arab Palestinians.
> ∆   Jews and Arab Palestinians are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.​


​*(COMMENT)*

I don't think you interpreted the context even remotely close.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *THE QUESTION:*
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, this seems to be only an interpretation you gather.  Very few people argue that the rights are equal between the two groups.

As for the issue of "colonialism," I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.  Again, that is out of context and the encouraged immigration to the territory under the Mandate as if it were illegal, evil or otherwise improper.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Jun 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> The problem I see with the Israel/Arab Muslim Palestine conflict is with the third aspect. The underlying issue is that the Arab Muslim Palestinians (particularly those in Gaza) utterly reject any Jewish sovereignty on any of the territory. Its a zero sum -- us or them -- game for them. Clearly, this can not be "addressed" by Israel as it demands the destruction of any sort of Jewish self-determination or sovereignty in the Jewish homeland...



No it doesn't. You can come to a power-sharing agreement. it worked well with deeply entrenched religious and ethnic hatreds in Northern Ireland (Scottish Protestant colonists against Catholic Irish natives). Hamas has said several times it would consider a long term truce; all it needs is for the Zionists to negotiate in good faith, something, they've never done in the past. The continuance of this conflict is to the advantage of the Zionists; while it goes on they can continue to steal land and disposess the natives.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.



Really? The Mandate system was the workaround adopted by Britain and France to gain new "colonies" from the defeated Ottomans without them being called "colonies"; a diplomatic fig leaf that was required due to their previous declaration that they had not gone to war to obtain new territories for their respective empires.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 17, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


"Palestine" was never an independent country to begin with,​
I know that this is the standard Israeli propaganda talking point but it is irrelevant. If you look at the resolutions it is the Palestinians who have the rights not Palestine. The status of Palestine has nothing to do with the rights of the Palestinians.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.



So committing war crimes (firing indiscriminately into civilian areas) is acceptable if that's all you got?  And this from the one who insists that Israel accurately pin point targets in Gaza so as never to harm a hair on a single civilian head.  Double standards much?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> ​*THE QUESTION:*  At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?
> 
> *THE ANSWER:*  At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.



Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction?  Therefore, some time after 1967? 

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning.  Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine?  Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine?  Why or why not?  What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?  

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?  

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter.  The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.
> ...



So, Syria is a French colony?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> No it doesn't. You can come to a power-sharing agreement. it worked well with deeply entrenched religious and ethnic hatreds in Northern Ireland (Scottish Protestant colonists against Catholic Irish natives). Hamas has said several times it would consider a long term truce; all it needs is for the Zionists to negotiate in good faith, something, they've never done in the past. The continuance of this conflict is to the advantage of the Zionists; while it goes on they can continue to steal land and disposess the natives.



Okay, let's assume this is true, and Hamas doesn't actually have a goal of the destruction of Israel and the reclamation of all of the territory to be under Arab Muslim rule.  (Crazy idea, but let's go with it for now).  

What, exactly, is there to negotiate with Gaza?  What negotiations has Israel failed to make "in good faith" with Gaza?  Israel unilaterally disengaged.  Israel made the territory suitably Judenrien.  There is a well-defined border.  Israel has not interferred with the complete control of the government in Gaza to govern.  What the heck does Gaza still WANT that has not already been unilaterally granted by Israel?  

The right to keep attacking?  THAT is not a "long term truce" or ceasefire or peace agreement.  That is the continuation of the conflict.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Your own posts when you say that Israel is an illegal state and does not exist of course. Then that the Jews are not Palestinians so did not have the right to declare independence but the Egyptians did.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 EVIDENCE that this is so, as every time I see that the Jews and arab muslims have the same rights under law, and all that goes with those rights.


 And one of those downfalls is the arab muslims do not have the right to violate any of the Jews rights


----------



## Shusha (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> If you look at the resolutions it is the Palestinians who have the rights not Palestine. The status of Palestine has nothing to do with the rights of the Palestinians.



ALL of the "Palestinians", Tinmore.  Not just SOME of them.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...









 Just where is their country as they have not defined it yet, and they cant claim any part of Israel as that would be against the Jews rights under international laws.   All we have is the usual islamonazi mantra of from the river to the sea from north to south.    Care to provide a 1988 map of this fantasy land area ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 LINK to show this as I only see the rights of the Jews are no different than the rights of the arab muslims at the time.  You cant use international laws retrospectively


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > The problem I see with the Israel/Arab Muslim Palestine conflict is with the third aspect. The underlying issue is that the Arab Muslim Palestinians (particularly those in Gaza) utterly reject any Jewish sovereignty on any of the territory. Its a zero sum -- us or them -- game for them. Clearly, this can not be "addressed" by Israel as it demands the destruction of any sort of Jewish self-determination or sovereignty in the Jewish homeland...
> ...









 And the clause that stops this being considered by any other than islamonazi's and neo Marxist morons is the one that gives the Palestinians the right to end the truce without warning when they feel they have amassed enough firepower and soldiers to win the war they will start. Then they will want another hudna to follow on from the last one.

 It is a negotiated peace with no open ends that the Palestinians can use to their advantage, and the penalties for breach of the treaty to be laid out openly and honestly.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.
> ...







 Typical neo Marxist POV of the facts that has no basis in fact


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ForeverYoung436 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 And who are the Palestinians, and how would disallowing the Jews from declaring independence on 22% of Palestine be against the arab muslims rights when they have declared on 78% and made it Jew free. Is that right in your eyes to make 78% of Palestine another Jew free zone ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.
> ...








 This is how Jew hatred clouds the mind and causes morons to enlist a two tier system of rules and laws. The Palestinians can fire at chidren because they are allowed to, but the Jews cant fire at military targets in case of collateral damage


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > ​*THE QUESTION:*  At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?
> ...








 The problem is many international laws were enacted before these rights came into being so according to Tinny the treaties in existence make these rights null and void because they interfere with International law. Lets see how he reacts to his own link being used against him and see what his answers are.
 But if international law of 1923 gives the Jews 22% of the area covered by the mandate of Palestine how can rights granted to everyone take it away from them in 2016. That must be a violation of the Jews rights to territorial integrity and self determination.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 17, 2016)

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.”  And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire).  While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

•  First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan).  Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman.  At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem.  However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof).  We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

•  Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct.  But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change.  But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

•  The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.​


Shusha said:


> Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction?  Therefore, some time after 1967?
> 
> Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning.  Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine?  Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine?  Why or why not?  What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial.  It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force.  HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated.  Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.  The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty.  Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example.  And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something.  But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal.  The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 20, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,
> 
> This is a question of “cession.”  And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire).  While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.
> 
> ...


The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​
The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,
> ...


King - Field Marshal General tinmore has spoken. The newly assigned leadership of the Arabs-Moslem terrorists occupying the disputed territories have succeeded the current thiefs-in-charge of the UN welfare fraud and there's a new Islamo-fraud management team in charge... Tinmore says so. 

This soft coup should shape up to be the happy-fun Islamic terrorist blood bath that defined the Hamas vs. Fatah kill-fest. More Islamic terrorist players, more fun.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha,
> ...







 Is that why the Palestinians are demanding BDS is scrapped.   I don't know where you drag your claims up from so how about a link proving your claims ?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.
> ...



Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



Was. After they denied the Syrians self determination in 1920 and carved up the old Ottoman areas at San Remo. Syria only became independant in 1946


----------



## Challenger (Jun 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > No it doesn't. You can come to a power-sharing agreement. it worked well with deeply entrenched religious and ethnic hatreds in Northern Ireland (Scottish Protestant colonists against Catholic Irish natives). Hamas has said several times it would consider a long term truce; all it needs is for the Zionists to negotiate in good faith, something, they've never done in the past. The continuance of this conflict is to the advantage of the Zionists; while it goes on they can continue to steal land and disposess the natives.
> ...



The PIRA's goal was the destruction of Northern Ireland and it's incorporation into Eire. No idea is crazy if there's the political will to talk seriously about peace, something Zionist Israel has never been interested in. As for Gaza Zionist israel controls their air space, their territorial waters and maintains a seige on land. You tell me "what the heck Gaza wants", it's not rocket science to negotiate a long term truce in exchange for the lifting of the siege, all you need is the political will from the Zionist side.  HAMAS would by happy enough to be left alone right now to rebuild Gaza.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 21, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?



It is a war crime to use indiscriminate weapons (weapons which can not be targeted).  Skill is not a factor with indiscriminate weapons, by their nature.  So a slingshot is not a correct analogy.  

A barrel of acid dropped from a helicopter into a civilian crowd would be a better analogy.  There is no way to target who gets hit with the acid.  The nature of the weapon does not permit the acid to discriminate between military targets and civilian ones.  This is a war crime.  

A response which has the ability to target a military object (like a helicopter with an acid barrel) and is targeted to that military object is not a war crime, even if civilians unintentionally are hurt or killed in the process.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 21, 2016)

Challenger said:


> You tell me "what the heck Gaza wants", it's not rocket science to negotiate a long term truce in exchange for the lifting of the siege, all you need is the political will from the Zionist side.  HAMAS would by happy enough to be left alone right now to rebuild Gaza.



We agree.  Its not rocket science.  All you need is the political will.  IF Hamas would be happy enough to be left alone to "rebuild", WHY do they continue to attack?  Why do they use concrete to build tunnels instead of homes and schools and hospitals?

Why don't they just stop attacking?  The cause of the "not being left alone" is the attacks.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


He lowered his voice. “And the P.A. isn’t doing anything to help. We’re barely making enough money to make ends meet, while they fixate on appeasing the occupation.”

The Palestinian Authority spends 27 percent of its budget on its security forces, turning the territories into a virtual police state. Within my circles, people say that if Israel doesn’t arrest you, the P.A. will. “You think you’re safe because you’re in Ramallah?” they joke. “The P.A. is preparing a nice big file on you to turn over to the Israelis.” Beneath the black humor is a loathing of the Palestinian Authority, for its complacency over the occupation and its disconnect from the people.

Abu Jamal was still venting. “You think there is no money? There is money. The P.A. has money. Look around you, it’s everywhere: the fancy cars they drive to the villas they build.” He shook his head. “It’s going to explode, we’re all going to explode.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/ramallahs-mean-streets.html?_r=1


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Islamics are going to explode?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2016)

Israeli response to attacks from Islamic terrorists in Gaza


----------



## Shusha (Jun 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


>



Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion. 

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas.  But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians?  Can they be victims? 

The answer seems obvious to me:  Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they? 

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel* ASSUMES* that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians. 

Islamic terrorism carries consequences. 

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 21, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



What I posted is the truth. Killing Jews as a religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that the Islamist struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and their eventual extermination by muhammedans is intrinsic to Islamism. Hamas includes this message in its charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Let's review what I wrote, shall we?

"Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic terrorism carries consequences."

What part of the above is untrue?


We can certainly explore HAMAS's many aggressions, its stated determination to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew therein, its use of islamo-tunnels to wage war against Israeli civilians, its use of human shields to discourage retaliatory fire by Israel. 
But then, all of that has been explained to you on many prior occasions, yet, you continue to cheer and flail your Pom Poms for dead islamo's when after all, dead islamo's are worth their weight in propaganda as cheap currency. .


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 22, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism crap?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Still ducking direct questions. What part of my comments above are not true?


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...









 Niether as the civilian in both cases should have been removed to a place of safety, unless your attack is of a terrorist nature and then it is a war crime and you should be charged with it.

That was the criteria used by the UN in determining that the qassams are illegal weapons, because their nature means they cant be guided


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Are you still denying that  hamas is a terrorist organisation, along with fatah, PLO and the muslim brotherhood. It is not Israel's but the civilised world that see them as terrorists.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







LINK  ? ? ?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Why don't they just stop attacking? The cause of the "not being left alone" is the attacks.



Zionist Israel provokes and has provoked most of the attacks from Gaza; a tactic they've used since the 1930's and taught to them by Orde Wingate.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?
> ...



Artillery and mortars are indiscriminate as are unguided bombs and rockets fired from aircraft. The IDF/IAF are therefore war criminals.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


A small number of countries. Israel and some of it lackeys mostly in the "west."

The EU does but their court says that the information used to make that designation was bogus. Probably true of the others also.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are off the track again.



P F Tinmore said:


> A small number of countries. Israel and some of it lackeys mostly in the "west."
> 
> The EU does but their court says that the information used to make that designation was bogus. Probably true of the others also.


*(COMMENT)*

The Court sad no such thing.  It made a determination that the record used to draw a conclusion was all OSINT (Opens Source Intelligence).   The court want to see criminal and classified intelligence, which the individual Intelligence Agencies will not share with a court that leaks more than the grand canyon.  So, the EU filed an appeal which then was used to ignore (stay) the courts decision.

This is not unusual.  What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Jun 22, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Air to ground missiles used by the IDF consist of various precision guided munitions.

Your comment therefore is ignorant and uninformed.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Why don't they just stop attacking? The cause of the "not being left alone" is the attacks.
> ...








 You use of the term Zionist out of context and as a racial attack shows that you have no arguments against the points raised. Time to crawl back down your hole and lick your wounds.

 How has Israel provoked the attacks when they are the results of hamas terrorism. No valid legal reason to fire illegal weapons at Israeli children from behind human shields


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...








 Wrong as modern weapons are mostly guided by computers, and if you watch the footage of Israel attacks you see the target getting hit 99.9% of the time. This the exact opposite of hamas illegal weapons that hit anywhere 100% of the time.  Why haven't the Israeli's been arrested then for these alleged war crimes, and been sent to prison. Or is this another of your islamonazi LIES.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...







 And racially motivated to incite violence against the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 WRONG as you have been shown. SO WHY DO YOU LIE TO INCITE VIOLENCE AGAINST THE JEWS ?


----------



## Challenger (Jun 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.



We tend to be a bit more circumspect regarding a legal system we set up over here, we don't just ignore rulings we don't like, unlike Zionist Israel 



RoccoR said:


> It made a determination that the record used to draw a conclusion was all OSINT (Opens Source Intelligence).



That's BS speak for media reportage as opposed to factual evidence which was not presented. Interesting that these "Intelligence agencies" balked at providing this evidence regarding HAMAS but not for every every other individual or group on the EU list. Looks like RoccoR's making things up again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.
> ...


Interesting that these "Intelligence agencies" balked at providing this evidence regarding HAMAS...​
Could it be that they don't have anything?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2016)

Challenger, P F Tinemore,  et al,

So, there seems to be a couple of issues you are whining about.

•  The issue of Off Duty Israeli Defense Force (IDF) personnel carrying weapons.
•  Denying that HAMAS is a terrorist organization,
•  Dahiya Doctrine



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.
> ...





			
				P F Tinmore Post #254 said:
			
		

> Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism crap?


[P F Tinmore Post #245 ]Palestinian Authority spends 27 percent of its budget on its security forces, turning the territories into a virtual police state.[/quote]


			
				P F Tinmore Post #250 said:
			
		

> This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.


*(COMMENT)*


•  IDF and Off-Duty Weapons;

∆  It was a decision made by _Lieutenant General (OF-8)_ Gadi Eisenkot, Chief of the Israeli General Staff, sometime within the last month.  This is principle for Internal Defense and Development against Threats, using deadly force, that are acting on behalf of Palestinian Terrorist directly targeting unarmed civilians.
I encourage you to read the *YNet News Article* for earlier this month.

BTW, The Geneva Convention is not applicable Law for crimes wholly committed within Israel; except for thos that can be tied directly to a foreign source.  Within Israel, Israeli Criminal Law is applicable in the matter of Statutes adopted in the Knesset.

"But critics of the country's right-wing government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, directed their ire not just at Islamist militants -- authorities suggest Hamas was behind the attacks -- but the prevailing political status quo.
By Ishaan Tharoor Associated Press *The Journal, (c) 2016, The Washington Post*.
Article Last Updated: Friday, June 10, 2016 ​•  HAMAS and Terrorism;

∆  The EU Court decision did not, in any way, claim that HAMAS was not a terrorist.  Being taken from the List of Terrorist (or not being on the Terrorist List) has not being on whether of not the organization like HAMAS which  advocates Jihad and armed resistance as the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights. 

Remember: the Slogan for HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement ) is:  "Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."  And the intent in 1988 ("There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.") is essentially the same as the Policy as stated by Khalid Mishaal , Chief of the Political Bureau, when in 2012 he published HAMAS's position and vision; including: "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights. 

What defines a Terrorist Group is their deeds and actions. 

_In an article published July 16, 2013 on Felesteen.ps_, _a website affiliated with Hamas, Hamas Refugee Affairs Department head Dr Issam 'Adwan argued that Hamas had the right to attack Israeli embassies and interests as well as senior Israeli officials anywhere in the world. He added that the resistance is also entitled to harm the interests of Israel's allies, headed by the U.S._ - See more at: Senior Hamas Official: The Resistance Is Entitled To Attack Israel’s Embassies, Interests, And Officials Worldwide — And The Interests Of Its Allies, Headed By The U.S. | Pamela Geller​*  Dahiya Doctrine;

The Dahiya Doctrine is a variation of "shock and awe" --- "a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight. The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of the National Defense University of the United States.+

See:  *The Dahiya Doctrine: Fighting dirty or a knock-out punch? *Jerusalem Post By YAAKOV KATZ \  01/28/2010 

"At least once a month here, a disagreement erupts between the top generals over the significance of the Dahiya Doctrine and whether it should be used again in a future conflict. Most believe it should.

DAHIYA IS a neighborhood in Beirut which can only be accessed by card-carrying Hizbullah members. During the 2006 war, the IDF bombed large apartment buildings in the neighborhood since they were also used as Hizbullah command-and-control centers, and were built over Hizbullah bunkers.

The disagreements regarding the doctrine are not directly connected to the Goldstone report, but more to the impact such strikes have on Israel’s enemies. Those against this doctrine believe that due to the makeup of Hizbullah and Hamas, it is almost impossible to deal it a fatal blow like when fighting against a conventional military. Those in favor believe that a blow to a terror group’s nerve center can indeed have such an effect."​
[Challenger, Post #241]
Was. After they denied the Syrians self determination in 1920 and carved up the old Ottoman areas at San Remo. Syria only became independent in 1946[/quote]
*(COMMENT)*

Remember

*Sykes-Picot Agreement* (May 1916), was a secret agreement during World War I between Great Britain and France, with the assent of imperial Russia, for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. 
No one denied Syria their right to self-determination.  Yes Syria in 1946, so was Lebanon and Jordan.  From the looks of Syria today, maybe 1946 was a bit too soon.  Syria may fracture in due time.

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

I don't think you know what you are talking about.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

HAMAS is the only designated terrorist group to make the challenge at the EU Court.  And that is because it has diplomatic channels to use.  

Yes, the arrest warrants and extradition proceedings for individuals is entirely different, from categorizing official communiqué's from terrorist groups and organizations. 

The evidence on individual members, in organizations like HAMAS or Abu Nidal (Fatah Revolutionary Council), are often derived from witness and media statement; especially photo/pictures.  


Several Pictures like this one were used to identify and place individuals on the designated terrorist list.  Pictures like this, vetted media provided material and witness statements, are all OSINT; even some police reports.

Reports that are not shared, are usually those that can compromise a source or capability; telephone numbers and identification of communications with know individuals that have been identified as providing material assistance to terrorist or terrorist organizations.   The "Foot Print."

In fact, very little of the information used to place individuals on the designated lists comes from "Intelligence Sources and Methods."  Now the NCTC does have a database of OSINT and identifications data that many use; but that is often OSINT.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I would not put too much stock in this highly speculative conjecture.



P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

HAMAS is known to have provided safe haven and support to a number of known terrorist groups.

Every time a Pro-HAMAS outlet says they have the right to attack unarmed civilians in Israel, they are advocating terrorism.

This i an interesting observation from Quora:

Part of the strategy was to see how long they could lob rockets into Israel, under the watchful eyes of the world and not be condemned. A game they have played for many years and sadly win in many arenas. They taunt the Israeli government until a harsh response is made. This is the only response they understand. Then once the response is made, they take the side that Israel is killing their citizens and destroying Gaza. It is a very exacting game by Hamas. ​
There is evidence out there.  Actually HAMAS seldom if ever denies an act they have committed.  It is almost as if they know they are above the law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > What is unusual is that the EU just did not come out and slam the court.
> ...









 More islamonazi Jew hatred and Nazism from ratboy, yet another LIE to demonise the Jews

 Have you read tinny's post that says differently and has it as facts and reality


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...







They should ask you as you have all the facts, you posted them on another thread and shot yourself in the foot doing so.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I would not put too much stock in this highly speculative conjecture.
> 
> ...


how long they could lob rockets into Israel,​
Can you prove that statement?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...



Yep.


----------



## Phoenall (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








 haven't you read the reports from many NGO's that say this is a fact.  Its only you that denies the facts


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Reports based on assumptions.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



There is a cure for your affliction of BBS (_Baghdad Bob Syndrome_).


----------



## Challenger (Jun 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> No one denied Syria their right to self-determination.



Arab Kingdom of Syria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does.  He steals cookies.



P F Tinmore said:


> how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
> Can you prove that statement?


*(COMMENT)*

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel.  You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.  

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond.  But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION:  You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them...  The answer is:

•  For a duration longer that 8 months.
•  In a quantity grater that 4000.​THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace.  So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does.  He steals cookies.
> 
> ...


I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.


----------



## Challenger (Jun 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does.  He steals cookies.
> 
> ...



Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

_“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” _said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy._ “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”_

_“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,” _said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV._ “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

"For Israeli Occupation Forces, it is open season; a season that lasts all year round. There are no permits required, no restrictions levied. They are vested with weaponry funded by U.S. taxpayers, strapped with loaded machine guns and ready to “shoot to kill” every moving target. Children wielding stones and knives are squashed dead. Shoot first, ask later. Israeli forces discern a revolting pleasure in cruelty and suffering. They’ve become so desensitized to carrying out extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians, inflicting unbearable agony on others, and pulling the trigger without so much as a second thought as if they’re playing a video game. The killing of Palestinian civilians has become so commonplace, such a natural part of conversation. With a shrill disregard for human life, they’ve become immersed in a world that long ago stopped recognizing the value of human life and human dignity; a world that robbed them of their will and reduced them to machines aiming at moving objects in keffiyehs to be exterminated like prey. Aggressive, unhinged, implacable soldiers have successfully demonized and dehumanized themselves more than anyone else."

So who are the real "terrorists"?

'Under Fire' - Israel's artillery policies scrutinised | AOAV

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Sadly I couldn't find data on mortar rounds or tank shells, but I'll keep looking. Here's an account confirming mortars were used Breaking the Silence › Testimony - The artillery is constantly firing
_


----------



## Hollie (Jun 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



"Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations...."

Such taqiyya is not going to help you. To suggest that israel is provoking the islamic terrorists in Gaza is unsubstantiated nonsense. 

Your "..... because I say so" claims are mere piffle.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh --- knock it off.

Wasn't you that just used the "Declarative Theory" to justify Palestinian Statehood?



P F Tinmore said:


> I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.


*(COMMENT)*

You are just trying to play semantics with  wording.

The fact is, territorial sovereignty is defined by that perimeter in which the government exercises exclusive control over.  

While it is absolutely easy to see where Israel exercises exclusive control (defined territory); it is the security barriers that the Palestinians are constantly complaining about.  But it is damn near impossible to identify any perimeter (defined territory) to which the Arab Palestinians hold exclusive jurisdiction.

Don't try to play word games when there is tangible and observable evidence at hand that establishes the point of contention.  In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League.  Well, that is just foolish.  

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have attempted several times to militarily secure territory to which they were not entitled.  And the net effect was that the area exclusive control for Israel today is greater that that in 1949.  And the area of exclusive control for the Hostile Arab Palestinians is considerably smaller.

Forget your homegrown word-smithing to prove your point.  Look at the hard reality.

And consider that the fact that there are HoAP that walk, talk and think like you, is one of the most compelling reasons that peace through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States has been totally lost --- wasted if you will --- on the HoAP.

Given the attitude of the HoAP and the ineptitude of the Government of Palestine, there does not seem to be much of an argument for the Israelis to adopt the concepts of the Arab Palestinian Fantasy World.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

Well, you're making several errors in your argument here.



Challenger said:


> Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m
> 
> _“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” _said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy._ “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”_


*(COMMENT)*

You act as if avery piece of munitions on the Battlefield is some kind of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) _(Guided munitions differ from Free Flight munitions in that they have a guidance system and usually a much more sophisticated fusing system_).  And that there is a never ending supply of such ordnance and munitions.  This is not true for the US Armed Forces.  I don't know why you would think it would apply to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Second, the Arab League has, in the past, demonstrated more than once that it is quite willing to utilize the combined military capacities of several nations to assault Israel.  Thus, there must be on hand, at all times, such sufficient ordnance and munitions; Insensitive Munitions,

_


Challenger said:



			“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,”
		
Click to expand...

_


Challenger said:


> said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV._ “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)
> 
> Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF..._


*(COMMENT)*

Well, if this nonsense if a war crime, then we must acknowledge that nearly every Free Flight Munition launched by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is a war crime.  Since 2001, more than 15,200 rockets and mortars, an average of over 3 rocket attacks every single day, have targeted Israel.  Each attack is a violation.

By the end of the first 48 hours period, as many as 800 Tomahawks _(sea-based Tomahawks have 1000 lb. warheads, the air-based version can have up to 3000 lbs.)(a minimum of 400 Tons just in Tomahawks)_ fallen on Baghdad in 2003.  "Smart weapons" -- the military calls them precision-guided munitions (PGMs) -- weren't widely used in 1991. Only 244 laser-guided bombs and 88 cruise missiles hit Iraq, out of a total of some 250,000 bombs dropped during the war.

_


Challenger said:



Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Click to expand...

_*(COMMENT)*

The point being here, is that 800 Tons sounds like a lot, and if you are on the cross-hairs, it would be something; but, as conventional interdictions go, it is not a lot.  And in terms of PGMs, that is like 1 in a 1000.  In the 2003 Iraq War only 244 laser-guided bombs and 88 cruise missiles hit Iraq, out of a total of some 250,000 bombs dropped during the war.

The world did not blink because tonage is not necessarily how you judge the intensity on the battlefield.  The Israel-Palestinians engagement are what we call Low Intensity Conflict.  And HAMAS is becoming something that even the Arab Palestinians will want to distance themselves from. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh --- knock it off.
> 
> ...


In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League.​
This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?

Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The UN Mixed Armistice Commission helped craft the Agreements.



P F Tinmore said:


> This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?
> 
> Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?


*(COMMENT)*

Not everyone in the world is as naive as you.  They each understood that the title of each agreement was with the Government of Israel.  The politicization of the use of the word "Palestine" is just some face saving grace for the Arab League Members.  But at the top of each Agreement is the name of the parties to which the Armistice Applied.  The Arab League and the Hostile Arabs say that they won every conflict surge.  It does mean it is true.

*(QUESTION)*

Did you know that in 1967, Israel did not occupy any territory that was under the exclusive control of any Arab Palestinian entity or activity?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The UN Mixed Armistice Commission helped craft the Agreements.
> 
> ...


They each understood that the title of each agreement was with the Government of Israel.​
All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.


----------



## theliq (Jun 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Thanks Tinnie.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Agreements us the title "Palestine" as it was defined in Paragraph 1 of the League of Nation "Palestine Order in Council."  It was a regional nation; which does not lend itself to being a sovereign designator.   There was never any intention by either the League of Nations or the United Nations that the term "Palestine" was to identify a independent government; other than that defined by the Order in Council.

Ideally, an Armistice Agreement, is followed-up by a Peace Treaty.  In the case of Jordan, the following little tid-bit comes from the *Official Website of the Hashemite Kingdom*'s History site. 

The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. *Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time*, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”​You will notice, that without prejudice to the Inhabitance of the West Bank, the treaty (in Article 3 - International Boundary) establishes the international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a). 

Similarly, the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt of March 26, 1979, says  Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel; with Article II describing the "permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.[;" and further detailed in Annex II.

*NOTICE: *That in both Treaties, there is no mistake as to where the International boundaries are, or with whom the boundaries between.  Neither Treaty mentions "Palestine" as an independent or sovereign entity.



P F Tinmore said:


> All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.
> 
> Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

First, the Armistice Agreements do not cover "International Borders."  For that, you have to go to the Treaties.

Second, You are purposely misleading the reader into implying that the term "Palestine" means something more than the "territory to which the former Mandate applied" 9official short-titled to "Palestine")under the Order in Council.

Third, the territory inside the "Palestine's international borders" as something you can use in this argument.  It certainly does not imply that it internationally recognizes the State of Palestine; merely the Mandate (UK) Government of Palestine.



			
				International Boundary Study 1965 said:
			
		

> Officially declared a British protectorate on December 18, 1914, Egypt was granted independence by the United Kingdom on January 28, 1922. The eastern boundary of Egypt was not explicitly delimited either at the time of independence or by the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923.1 By the terms of the treaty, Turkey renounced all rights and titles to territories lying outside of her immediate boundaries. Since independence Egypt has exercised sovereignty in Sinai. Following World War I the League of Nations approved a Palestine mandate to be administered by the United Kingdom for the part of the former Turkish Empire adjacent to Sinai. The line established by the Turco– Egyptian agreement of 1906 was afforded the status of an international boundary by both the United Kingdom and Egypt between the mandate of Palestine and Egyptian Sinai.



*(RECOMMENDATION)*

That you study and use the International Boundary portions of the respective Treaties with Egypt and Jordan; and not try to twist the language of extinct Armistice Agreements to fit your agenda.  Between the two treaties, which encapsulate the Gaza Strip area and the West Bank Area, are discussed.

(_*Just to avoid a Arab-Palestinian Knit Picking Argument in the Future)*_
It should be noted that the entire boundary was shifted slightly eastward. A reason given for shifting the line eastward was based on historical precedence because boundary pillars had been located in Rafah since the Middle Ages.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


----------



## Hollie (Jun 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



The war against Islamic terrorism.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

At the marker 9:48/32:46, you will take note that:  Rashid Khalidi specifically said that he would not discuss the events in the lead-up to the Operation.  Thus, this does not, in any way, refute anything that was involved in my reply.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

The "authority" cited here is Professor Rashid Khalidi, he has no international strategic security expertise; nor, has he service in either the Armed Forces of the Unites States or Israel.  His claim to fame is that he was associated to the long since defunct U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East, and was a Professor of Modern Arab Studies (Columbia).  His inner action and hands-on experience in the MiddleEastern Conflict has been as a mediocre academician, a Beirut political activists in Beirut under the cover of a journalist during the first Lebanon War (Operation Peace for Galilee).  His principle contribution during the Gulf War was as a news media outlet commentator.

With all due respect,--- Professor Rashid Khalidi is not an expert on the Military Strategy or the Customary and International Humanitarian Law to which he speaks. I do consider his opinion as valuable as any other, he is not a subject matter expert (SME) at all, not even in a closely related area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...."   THEN the actor --- dressed as a Physician proceeds to recommend a brand of medicine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Armistice Agreements us the title "Palestine" as it was defined in Paragraph 1 of the League of Nation "Palestine Order in Council."  It was a regional nation; which does not lend itself to being a sovereign designator.   There was never any intention by either the League of Nations or the United Nations that the term "Palestine" was to identify a independent government; other than that defined by the Order in Council.
> 
> ...


What in all that refutes my post?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Your implications are incorrect.



P F Tinmore said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Your implication that the establishment of the Armistice Line along the FEBA is a agreement that was not intended to address borders, nor did address borders.  The intention and objective of the Armistice Agreement was to open a "ceasefire."



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.


*(COMMENT)*

Nonsense.  The Armistice Agreement can only be establish between states.  And the Armistice agreements show Israel as a party to the Agreement: NOT Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

The Palestine in question was defined as the "territory under which the Mandate applied."   The survey that established the boundaries between the various Mandates were put together by the Boundary Commission.  Yes the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, not a sovereign state.  You do this all the time.  You spread misinformation by suggesting that the Palestine Mentioned, was some none- existent sovereign state with some assigned territorial control.  It was not.




P F Tinmore said:


> Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.


*(COMMENT)*

Wrong again.  It was called "Palestine" according to the Palestine Order in Council.  The international boundaries (defined territory) of which you speak were consistent with the agreements of the Allied Powers to determine.



P F Tinmore said:


> This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Wrong again.  The defined territory of Israel was that territory for which Israel maintained and enforced exclusive sovereign control.  No external power had control.



			
				Sovereignty and International Law  said:
			
		

> Thus State sovereignty meant a State’s independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers on the one hand and the State’s exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and inhabitants on the other. The legitimacy of the sovereign State was considered to be no longer religious but secular, its _ratio essendi _being self-assertion and survival.
> SOURCE:   *Sovereignty and International Law  by *MIYOSHI Masahiro, Professor Emeritus of International Law Aichi University, Japan
> NOTE:  the term _"ratio essendi"_ means: "That by reason of which something exists.."





			
				 THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE PEACE PALACE said:
			
		

> •  During the 17th and the 18th centuries, State sovereignty meant that a State‟s autonomy and independence from and lawful and authorized impermeability with regard to foreign powers on the one part and State‟s exclusive control, jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and population on the other.  The authenticity of the sovereign states was considered to be no longer spiritual and religious but worldly secular.   In simpler words, State Sovereignty connotes the basic international legal status of a state.   The theory of Sovereign equality of states is a well recognized principle of international law.   Such a principle signifies that:
> 
> (a) States are judicially equal;
> (b) each State enjoys the rights intrinsic in full sovereignty;
> ...



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Your implications are incorrect.
> 
> ...


You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.


----------



## Hollie (Jun 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



You should learn to focus on what was written out for you. Sidestepping with your silly one-liners makes you appear quite befuddled.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.



You keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty", if such a thing indeed exists in law, would apply to BOTH peoples and not just the one.  

You also keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty" is not actual sovereignty.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,

Yes, our friend "Shusha" has it correct.  The "right to (Fill In the Blank)" is a theoretical construct of the mind.  Just because you believe you have a "right" to something today, does not mean that the "right" always existed; and it does not mean that the "right" will always exist now and into the future.   A theoretical construct does not actually confers anything of a tangible nature.

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. *Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists.* But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: _supreme authority within a territory_. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.
*SOURCE: *  Second Paragraph in Section ---*1.  A Definition of Sovereignty* --- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​


Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.
> ...


(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is a dilemma.  It pits the turn of the century _(binding only in so far as the UN Charter supports it in Chapter I)_ concept (*A/RES/50/172 27 February 1996*) against the reality reality of real events.

1.    Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

-----------------------------  VERSUS  -----------------------------​
6.    Condemns any act of armed aggression or threat or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or their legitimate leaders;

7.    Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;​
Under these human constructs, the people of Israel have the right to freely, and without external interference, determine their political status; --- and the Arab Palestinian are condemned for any acts of jihad or armed struggle --- and the use of force, intimidation or coercion against the People of Israelis, their elected Government and legitimate leaders.  Having this "right" does not prevent the necessity for the People of Israel from having to defend itself every single day from attempting to use force against the Israeli People to alter government policy and prevent further acts of aggression.  This previous history of aggression includes activities like that of the 1948 Arab League invasion, the staging and deployment of heavily armed Arab forces on the border, and the closure of the Titan Straits in 1967, and surprise attack by Arab League forces in 1973.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Shusha,  et al,
> 
> Yes, our friend "Shusha" has it correct.  The "right to (Fill In the Blank)" is a theoretical construct of the mind.  Just because you believe you have a "right" to something today, does not mean that the "right" always existed; and it does not mean that the "right" will always exist now and into the future.   A theoretical construct does not actually confers anything of a tangible nature.
> 
> ...


1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.

Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?

Link?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.
> 
> *Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?*



Would you please listen to your own claims?  If the right of peoples to self-determination, sovereignty or whatever it is that you are arguing this week, is inherent -- then it does NOT NEED to be specified or granted.  Make up your mind.  Either those rights are inherent - in which case both peoples have them.  Or those rights must be granted in which case Rocco is entirely correct that they were never granted to specifically to the Palestinians but they were granted to the Jewish people in the terms of agreements speaking of a Jewish National Home. 

You need to be really clear here which you are arguing.  You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day.  *Are the Palestinians rights inherent?  *Yes or no?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;​
> ...


Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. That is universal. I haven't flopped around at all. I have always held that position.

Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.

As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..



Then the Jewish people's rights are also inherent.  Full stop.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the Palestinian's rights are inherent. ..
> ...


When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?


----------



## Hollie (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


How did you so sweepingly miss your self-contradictory / self-refuting argument?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Where was that?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Are the Palestinians peoples rights inherent?  Or do they obtain these rights only when they become a legal people?  How is "legal peoplehood" obtained?  What instrument of international law grants such rights?  

Are the Palestinian peoples rights inherent?  Or do they obtain these rights only when they have a defined territory?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


It is the people of the place who have rights. The French have these rights in France. The British have these rights in Britain. The French cannot go to Britain and claim rights. The are not the people of that place.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you have jumped the track here.



			
				Non-Binding: Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
			
		

> *Preamble*
> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
> *Article 2*
> Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.  UDHR



The idea of Universal Rights _(inherent/inalienable)_ adds nothing to the claim; it does not aid your argument.  It merely states that all have the same rights.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You switch back and forth like a pendulum depending on which way the wind blows on any given day.  *Are the Palestinians rights inherent?  *Yes or no?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Again, if the Arab Palestinian has inherent rights, then the Israelis have the very same Human Rights.  THEN we fall right back to the discussion and Comment of Post #300.



P F Tinmore said:


> Here we have to follow the timeline carefully. The signing of the Treaty of Lausanne was the turning point. Britain occupied Palestine until the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne. Whatever Britain did before that became irrelevant. The rules had changed. Palestine changed from an occupied territory to a successor state. Britain's duties and restrictions fell under a different body of law. Palestine's borders were defined by post war treaties. Those became Palestine's international borders. At that time the inhabitants inside that defined territory legally became Palestinian nationals and citizens of Palestine.


*(COMMENT)*

The Treaty of Lausanne did not have an impact on either the League Mandate System or the Mandate for Palestine in any way shape or form; with the possible exception that Article 16 gives the Allied Powers the explicit authority to the control of the future for these territories (no interpretation required).



			
				Lausanne Treaty: Part I said:
			
		

> *POLITICAL CLAUSES*
> *ARTICLE 16*.
> Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, *the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned*.  Treaty of Lausanne



Do not confuse Article 30 of the treaty to award anything special to the Palestinians.  Article 30 was to insure that there were no "stateless people" as a result of a change in sovereignty.  Hence the Palestine Order and the Citizenship Orders set the stage for the Mandatory Government to issue citizenship and identify documents for the territories.



P F Tinmore said:


> As the legal people inside a defined territory, the Palestinian's inherent rights were set.


*(COMMENT)*

The habitual resident in territory did not establish the territory, or define the territorial limits. 

In the larger context, the inhabitance (Arab and Jewish) of the territory under the Mandate for Palestine, all had the very same citizenship under the very same authority.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I'm not sure where you get these funny ideas that fill your head.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The legal inhabitance of the territory to which the Mandate Applied, is by the granting of the citizenship, legal.

The idea that "legal people inside a defined territory" only makes sense if these legal people are recognized by the Mandatory.

The Allied Powers were granted the rights and title to the territories, and to determine the future of the territory.  In large part, that Article 16 Authority was delegated to the Mandatory within the limits of the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you have jumped the track here.
> 
> ...


That is why the timeline is critical. The Mandate did not commence until about two months after Palestine became a successor state. Anything Britain did had to conform to the Rights of the Palestinians.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is the people of the place who have rights. The French have these rights in France. The British have these rights in Britain. The French cannot go to Britain and claim rights. The are not the people of that place.



Oh! Come on now!  Surely you aren't going to claim that the Jewish people aren't a "people of the place".  Because that would be silly.  

What you are going to try to claim is that ONLY people who were residents from what, 1923? were the people of the place.  And you are going to try to claim that self-determination does not include self-identification or the rights to control immigration.

Of course, you are going to apply your double standards there as well.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,

What in the hell are you taking about.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (EOTA) was a military administration over the territory to be laced under Mandate from the former Ottoman Empire between 1918–20.  There was no defined Palestine in that period.  In mid 1920, the EOTA handed- its authority to the UK Civil Administration.  The Franco-British Boundary Agreements, that established a Joint Border Commission, which gave their results to the Britain and France governments --- before they assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.   Treaty of Lausanne  was signed on 24 July 1923, the Mandate for Palestine became effective in September 1923.

Again what are you talking about?  Where is your conflict?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> What in the hell are you taking about.
> 
> ...


None of this refutes my post.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The UK became the Mandatory Government of the Territory to which the Mandate was to apply.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Nothing establishes governmental authority over the territory except by the authority of the Allied Powers.

Palestine is only called "Palestine" by the authority of the Order in Council.  There is nothing that grants the Article 16 authority beyond the Allied Powers until the creation of the Mandate.

Nothing you have posted so far has demonstrated an authority transferred beyond Article 16.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The UK became the Mandatory Government of the Territory to which the Mandate was to apply.
> 
> ...


Still nothing refutes my post.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Every issue in your post was addressed.



P F Tinmore said:


> Still nothing refutes my post.


*(COMMENT)*

Nothing in your post grants the Palestinians anything tangible.   The Palestinians have no special rights; above that which all people have.  

The treaties grant no title or rights to the Palestinians, that is unique to them; and no territorial rights or privileges are granted to the Palestinians.

Relative to the factual points and context of the discussion, none of your counterpoints _(as jumbled-up and dis orientated as they are)_ have survived.

Any inherent rights that is claimed and pointed out as applicable to the Palestinians, is also _(by the nature of being a inherent right)_ applicable to the Israelis.  If you claim an inherent right for the Palestinian, then simultaneously you have also extended and defended that right to the Israelis _(and the rest of the world)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Every issue in your post was addressed.
> 
> ...


You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.

What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?

The right to self determination without external interference.
External to what if there is no territory?

The right to independence and sovereignty.
What does this mean without territory?

The right to territorial integrity.
What does this mean without territory?

No smoke.

Just four answers to four simple questions.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh, you don't read very well.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.


*(COMMENT)*

OK, you are talking about the UN.   The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly  *A/RES/67/19* Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012): 

"Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders,"

1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967; ​
So we are specifically addressing the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the City of Jerusalem.  None of which were under the exclusive control of the Arab Palestinian at the time they were occupied in 1967 by the Israeli.  So none of that territory was taken, in any way shape or form, from the Arab Palestinian. 




P F Tinmore said:


> What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?
> 
> The right to self determination without external interference.


*(COMMENT)*

The meaning of "Palestine" was the territory formerly under the Mandate (1948).  In 1988, without objection or preventative action, the Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the Palestinian people,  was granted observer status after declaring independence.



			
				EXCERPT  1988 Declaration of Independence for Palestine said:
			
		

> Now by virtue of natural, historical and legal rights, and the sacrifices of successive generations who gave of themselves in defense of the freedom and independence of their homeland; In pursuance of Resolutions adopted by Arab Summit Conferences and relying on the *authority bestowed by international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947*; And in *exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its rights to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory,* The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem (Al-Quds Ash-Sharif).
> SOURCE:  Arab League



You will notice that, unlike the Arab League in 1948, Israel did not attempt to obstruct by military force, the the right of self-determination by the Jewish People to establish the Jewish State of Israel; pursuant to the Step Preparatory to Independence under the same authority in the Palestinian Declaration:  "international legitimacy as embodied in the Resolutions of the United Nations Organization since 1947."

The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the sole, legitimate representative recognized by the world community as a whole, acknowledge the recognized this event and the conditions.



P F Tinmore said:


> External to what if there is no territory?
> 
> The right to independence and sovereignty.


*(COMMENT)*

No one argues the "RIGHT" of independence and self-determination.  That question was never even up for debate.   Everyone acknowledged fact that in 1988, that transpired. 



			
				EXCERPT:  Paragraph 2 of the Letter dated 25 March 1999 from the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General said:
			
		

> For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a _corpus separatum_, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.  SOURCE:  *A/53/879  S/1999/334  25 March 1999*



THIS bares repeating again:  "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II),"  And it is in this acknowledgement we see two things:  

•  The right of self-determination, independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity;
•  We see the acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the Jewish state as outlined in the Resolution.​


P F Tinmore said:


> What does this mean without territory?
> 
> The right to territorial integrity.


*(COMMENT)*

BEFORE you can have territorial integrity, first you must have control of some territory.  The "right" to something does not mean you have something.  The right to bear arms does not mean you actually have arms.  Nor does it mean that if you go to the government and say, you have the right to bear arms, don't expect them to hand you a weapon.  The "right" does not means you "have."



P F Tinmore said:


> What does this mean without territory?


*(COMMENT)*

Just as in the preceding example; you can have the "right to territorial integrity" and actually NOT have a territory.  One does not trump the other.



P F Tinmore said:


> No smoke.
> Just four answers to four simple questions.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, 4 simple questions and a reply with for simple answers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh, you don't read very well.
> 
> ...


OK, you are talking about the UN. The Resolution adopted by the General Assembly *A/RES/67/19* Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4 December 2012):​
That is not the one I was talking about. The rest of your post is based on false assumption.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.



There doesn't have to be.  They are INHERENT rights, remember?  That is your argument.  The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).



> What is the meaning of "in Palestine" if the Palestinians have no territory?



What makes you think the Palestinians have no territory?  Of course they have territory.  They govern Areas A and B and Gaza.  Furthermore, Israel clearly has no interest in retaining these territories, as demonstrated by the signing of the Oslo Accords and by the disengagement of Gaza.  

The dispute lies in determining the final boundaries and ethnic diversity (or lack) of each territory.  That's the end game.  

The problem, ideologically, is that you, many others on this forum and internationally and the Arabs (the HoAP) have a different end game.  Your end game is that the Jewish people must have no rights, no territory, no sovereignty and no self-determination.  Because the Jewish people somehow don't COUNT.  I've said this before, no doubt I will say it many more times for as long as I participate on this forum -- that is the fundamental, foundational source of the conflict.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The rest of your post is based on false assumption.



What false assumption?  That inherent rights apply to ALL peoples and not just to some?


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Wow, what a invalid answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

So you are saying that the 12 December 2012 Resolution is not the most recent, or is somehow inaccurate.

Not to worry. 

What is the FALSE Premise.  What statement was not true.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You are contradicting yourself. Look at the standard list of rights. The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.
> ...


You haven't been following my posts.

The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​
The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.

Israel is a different country with no defined territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The rest of your post is based on false assumption.
> ...


I have never stated otherwise. Those rights belong to the people of the place. They do not belong to people from someplace else.

You haven't been following my posts.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You haven't been following my posts.
> 
> The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​
> The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.



Wow.  Yes.  That is what I wrote.  Inherent rights do not need to be granted.  Inherent rights are already existing rights.  Do you not understand what _"inherent"_ means?  You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.  That is my essential problem with your argument.  Let me re-phrase -- that is where your argument is internally inconsistent.  You have two different sets of rules.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You haven't thought your arguments through to their conclusion.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, it is you that are missing the point.



P F Tinmore said:


> You haven't been following my posts.
> 
> The argument you have been obstinately putting forward -- that INHERENT rights have no need to be granted through "statements". You are still trying to have two sets of rules -- one for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis (read: Jews).​
> The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In the real world, it is not about who is granted what rights.  "Rights" are a human construct.  If there is an "inherent" right, intrinsic to one people, it is intrinsic to all; including "Jews."

I think you made a mistake.  I did not say the UN "granted" the Palestinians or Israelis any rights.  It is you that are pounding the "rights" issue.

But IT IS NOT POSSIBLE for the Palestinians to have an "inherent right" that the Israelis do not have.   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Wow, what a invalid answer.
> 
> ...


The resolution in your link is a piece of political theatre. It is based on wishful thinking.

4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and *fulfils the vision of two States:* an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel *on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;*​

Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.

They attempt to gain legitimacy by invoking resolution 181 with *absolutely zero* intention of implementing it, or any of the other resolutions mentioned.

Do you have any idea why they would pass such a useless resolution?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You haven't been following my posts.
> ...


You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​
I have never said that.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, WOW.



P F Tinmore said:


> The resolution in your link is a piece of political theatre. It is based on wishful thinking.
> 
> 4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and *fulfils the vision of two States:* an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security with Israel *on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;*​
> Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

How can anyone tell which UN Resolutions you approve of and which ones are invalid?

Do you put your stamp on them or something?

AND, when the sole representative of the Palestinians People Declare Independence and acknowledge the legitimacy of a Resolution, are we to just accept your word that they really did not mean to say that and declare that?

If one Resolution is invalid, should we consider any of them valid?  What makes the UN Resolution you pointed-out earlier any more valid then the ones I pointed out?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Again, WOW.
> 
> ...


Good question.

Some resolutions are based on international. Some are not.

The one you linked to is not.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,

OH come now.



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In your *Posting #301*; you said:



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> There are UN resolutions specifying those rights for Palestinians.
> 
> Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?
> 
> Link?



This implies that if the UN did not specify those right for the Israelis, then they don't have them.  You went so far as to demand a link as proof.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> OH come now.
> 
> ...


The resolution itself explains this.

_Expressing its grave concern​_that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​
It is the Palestinians who have been denied their rights.


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

What in heavens are you talking about?



P F Tinmore said:


> Good question.
> 
> Some resolutions are based on international. Some are not.
> 
> The one you linked to is not.


*(COMMENT)*

Where is this difference outlined and what does "based on international" mean.  Is there some kind of annotation?

I've examined Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [without reference to a Main Committee (A/67/L.28 and Add.1)] 67/19. Status of Palestine in the United Nations  pretty close, and I see no annotation, or missing annotation, that would make it any less valid than any other.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



Interesting link you provided.

"Particularly interesting and problematic is the following: 

5. _Further recognizes_ the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However,  it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one. 

_Ami Isseroff"_


----------



## RoccoR (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Again, I think you made a mistake.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237 were a 1974 (repeat) 1974 vintage.  That is 14 years before the PLO decided to exercise self-determination.   

AND, relative to these Resolutions, the West Bank and Jerusalem was still Sovereign Jordanian territory.

If the resolutions were pointing a finger, it was pointing a finger at Jordan.



			
				Disengagement from the West Bank said:
			
		

> On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
> SOURCE:  Official History Site *Unification of the Two Banks*
> 
> On July 28, 1988, King Hussein announced the cessation of a $1.3 billion development program for the West Bank, explaining that the measure was designed to allow the PLO more responsibility for the area. Two days later, he formally dissolved Parliament, ending West Bank representation in the legislature. *Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.* Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This disengagement decision marks the turning point that launched the current democratic process, and began a new stage in Jordan’s relationship with West Bank Palestinians.
> SOURCE:  Office History Site, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan



Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> What in heavens are you talking about?
> 
> ...


Indeed, they list a large number of former resolution then they go off on a tangent. None of those former resolutions will be implemented. If they were they would not need this one.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.



While I agree the "1967 borders" have no standing in law other than as they were intended, which is temporary armistice lines, I disagree that the two state solution has no basis.  You, yourself, are arguing most vehemently for one such basis in law -- that of the INHERENT right to self-determination and sovereignty over territory.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> AND, relative to these Resolutions, the West Bank and Jerusalem was still Sovereign Jordanian territory.



As an aside to discussions with Tinny, how did Jordan acquire sovereignty over the territory in question?  Simply the act of effective control?  Just curious as I can't see any legitimate claim to Jordanian sovereignty over that territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Neither the two state solution (partition) nor the pre-1967 borders have any basis in international law.
> ...


Interesting.

What is the legal basis for the two state solution?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> What is the legal basis for the two state solution?



Um.  The inherent right to self-determination and sovereignty that you are so vehemently arguing for?  Are you trying to now say that those inherent rights are pointless, since they have no legal basis?  WT actual F?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

This is where I tell you again that you have not thought your arguments through to their logical conclusion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > What is the legal basis for the two state solution?
> ...


OK, but where do you get two states?


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > You are claiming that Palestinians have inherent rights, while simultaneously claiming that the Jewish people can only have rights which are granted.​
> ...



Wow.  Seriously?



> The UN did not grant those rights to the Palestinians. It reaffirmed already existing rights. You need to read up.  Israel is a different country with no defined territory.



Implication is that Israel/Jewish people have no existing rights (thus no inherent rights).



> The UN states that the Palestinians, *in Palestine,* have these rights. There have been no similar statements for the Israelis.



Implication being that without any statements by the UN, the Israelis/Jewish people have no such rights (thus no inherent rights).



> Do you have any specifying those rights for Israelis?



Implication being that without any specifications of rights for Israelis/Jewish people, they have no such rights (thus no inherent rights).



> When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?



Implication being that unless a people becomes a "legal people" (through some mysterious process you have declined to describe) within a defined territory, they have no rights (thus no inherent rights).



This is only this thread, and only in the past day or so.  I haven't even touched other threads or done any detailed history.

Why don't you try to show me one response, one post, on one thread EVER where you supported clearly and unambiguously that the Jewish people have the same inherent, invioable rights that the Palestinians have.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> OK, but where do you get two states?



OMG -- what the actual F?  So you are saying that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian (Arab) people can have self-determination and sovereignty but that the territory can not be divided between them?  They can only have self-determination and sovereignty if they share the same exact territory?  

What the heck do you think self-determination and sovereignty MEAN?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


When did they become a legal people inside a defined territory?

Implication being that unless a people becomes a "legal people" (through some mysterious process you have declined to describe) within a defined territory, they have no rights (thus no inherent rights).​
I know, "legal people" seems like an odd term but I used it to make a point. And it is not some mysterious process.

There is a thing in international law called the law of state succession. What this means is that all of the people who were Turkish/Ottoman citizens and lived in the defined territory of Palestine, be they Muslims, Christians, or Jews, became Palestinian citizens without prejudice. This held true for the other successor states like Syria and Lebanon. Article 30 in the Treaty of Lausanne said the same thing as it followed the law.

I used the term "legal people" because they were Palestinian citizens as a matter of law. Of course, along with this citizenship came the inherent rights like the right to self determination, etc..


----------



## Shusha (Jun 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> I used the term "legal people" because they were Palestinian citizens as a matter of law. Of course, along with this citizenship came the inherent rights like the right to self determination, etc..



But, again, this brings us back to the fact that there are two distinct peoples who are "Palestinian citizens" -- the Jewish people and the people we commonly name "Palestinians".  So they BOTH have the rights to self-determination, right?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I used the term "legal people" because they were Palestinian citizens as a matter of law. Of course, along with this citizenship came the inherent rights like the right to self determination, etc..
> ...


The Palestinians already were Muslims, Christians, and, Jews all with equal rights.


----------



## xband (Jun 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The Allies had to put the Jews someplace after WWII and Palestine was picked.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians already were Muslims, Christians, and, Jews all with equal rights.



Including the inherent right to self-determination and sovereignty, yes?  

The Jewish "Palestinians" want their own self-determination and sovereignty.

The Arab Palestinians want their own self-determination and sovereignty.  

Both peoples have the same inherent rights, yes?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jun 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Palestinians already were Muslims, Christians, and, Jews all with equal rights.
> ...


You are confused. The Palestinians are only one people. They are all equal. Nobody has more rights, less rights, or exclusive rights.


----------



## Shusha (Jun 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You are confused. The Palestinians are only one people. They are all equal. Nobody has more rights, less rights, or exclusive rights.



Sure.  So you agree that the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians each have the same rights -- no more rights, no less rights, no exclusive rights.  Jeez what took you so long?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 No reports based on actual siting's of rockets being fired from gaza into Israel, with telemetry to prove their flight paths. Visible on Google Earth for anyone to see, if they want to pay for up to the minute images.
But you always deny the rights of the Jews don't you being a rabid racist Nazi anti Semite


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Unless they are Jews of course


----------

