# "Settlements" Are Not Illegal



## Shusha (Sep 10, 2016)

New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. 

A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.

_First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms. This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy._

...

_It isn't just double standards. It is that the international community has created an artificial international law to apply only to Israel, even though that law simply doesn't exist in other contexts. Not that it exists and is ignored - it doesn't exist. When legal critics give their laundry lists of violations of international law by belligerent occupiers, they simply do not consider settlement activity to be illegal.

This is an extraordinarily important paper that not only reveals much about international law, but also about how much of what people call international law in context of Israel is simply a lie.
_
_
_


----------



## MJB12741 (Sep 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.
> 
> ...



Yes, but what about those Zionists stealing "Palestinian land" by building their wailing wall around the Al Aqsa Mosque?


----------



## Boston1 (Sep 11, 2016)

Well that sure was an interesting read. 

And I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. Its another fine example of how people just invent nonsense in order to heap blame on Israel. 

The Mandate for palestine clearly left ALL LAND west of the Jordan to the sea as available for the creation of the Jewish homeland. Which is exactly what Israel is doing. The idea that ANY of the land was to remain in Arab hands is simply silly. 80% or so of the mandate was immediately designated for Arab settlement with the remaining 20% or so being intended for Judaic settlement. 

Yet there are actually people who will insist Israeli settlement is somehow illegal. Its not illegal, its nation building exactly as specified within the Mandate.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 11, 2016)

Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal.  No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 20, 2016)

Shusha,  et al,

I think you (Shusha) have made very good points.  But I think you are on a lost cause.

It has been my experience, that most of the people that argue this point (legal 'vs' Illegal) do not actually know what "illegal" means; but are somehow convinced that it is "illegal" because it has been repeated enough times.  Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute.  However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.



Shusha said:


> Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal.  No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.


*(COMMENT)*

The Key point here is made by the Diplomatic Conference of 1949: which "decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers."  The importance here is that neither Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 7 of the ICC, or Article 8 of the ICC, prohibit the voluntary transfer.

Also of importance is that under the Oslo Accords, the Settlements are not prohibited in Area "C" where Israel maintains full control.  Since the Palestinian Authority has not attempted to activate the dispute resolution process, there is a question as to if the PA has actually put forth an offical complaint since the issue of "settlements" come under the "Permanent Status of Negotiations."

In the International "Criminal" Code (ICC) there are two considerations:

*Elements of Crimes*
_The Elements of Crimes are reproduced from the Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC):
_
*•   Article 7 Crimes against humanity* 
Article 7 (1) (d)
Crime against humanity of deportation or forcible transfer of population
Elements

1. The perpetrator deported or forcibly _(FN#12)_ transferred,_(FN#13)_ without grounds permitted under international law, one or more persons to another State or location, by expulsion or other coercive acts.
2. Such person or persons were lawfully present in the area from which they were so deported or transferred. 
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the lawfulness of such presence.
4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.​*Footnote #12 -13:*
12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment. 

13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.​​*•  Article 8 War crimes*
Article 8 (2) (b) (viii)
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Elements

1. The perpetrator:

(a) Transferred,_(FN#44)_ directly or indirectly, parts of its own population into the territory it occupies; or
(b) Deported or transferred all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.​2. The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
3. The perpetrator was aware of factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict.​_*Footnote #44:*_
The term “transfer” needs to be interpreted in accordance with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law.​
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
*COMMENTARY OF 1958*

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT:  PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the *Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers *(4).

*Footnote #4:*
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;​
I have been, for some number of years, confused as to the specifications to the claim that the Settlements are "Illegal."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Sep 20, 2016)

That's the problem as pointed out in paper in the OP.  "Settlements" are not illegal.  Not anywhere in the world.  Even in places where an occupying government (a real occupation -- not a fake one like Israel is made out to be) actively encourages settlements through incentives, payments, land ownership and other goodies.  Its an interpretation which simply does not exist elsewhere, even in similar circumstances.  

I see that this thread isn't getting much activity.  I'll assume its because our regulars are quite aware of the truth of this.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 20, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> I think you (Shusha) have made very good points.  But I think you are on a lost cause.
> 
> ...


Israel plans and approves settlements. Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities. That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.

That said, other things become involved like the destruction and expropriation of Palestinian property. Both illegal.

The settlers do not move to Palestine. When they go they take Israel with them which is an illegal annexation of occupied territory.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israel plans and approves settlements.


Not illegal



> Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities.


Not illegal.



> That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible.


Not illegal.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Shusha, et al,

This is right on the button.



Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel plans and approves settlements.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I often here this word "illegal" batted about; without any substantiation.  This is one of those cases.

You can critique the Israeli Administration all you want, but there is very little you can say about the legality of this complaint.  This is a frivolous allegation, made by a unproductive people, representing the virtual and continuous victim, that can't seem to manage Area "A."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







WRONG AGAIN as you have been shown many hundreds of times, the destruction of buildings used for any military purpose is allowed under the Geneva conventions.


Are you once again denying the Jews the right to have International law support their actions, and denying that international laws exist that that separated palestine into two sections 78% for the arab muslims and 22% for the Jews.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

The ICJ gave an advisory opinion in 2004 and its opinion was that settlements in the occupied territory were a breach of international law.


http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
 120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

 In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
 "to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979)i.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. *The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territor;! (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law*


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> I think you (Shusha) have made very good points.  But I think you are on a lost cause.
> 
> ...


Sir, it appears as though you forgot about paragraph 6.

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.

ICRC service

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

ICRC service


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> I think you (Shusha) have made very good points.  But I think you are on a lost cause.
> 
> ...


*Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute.  However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law.*

Would not the "violation of a criminal statute" be defined as a crime? I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

No, I have not forgot about Paragraph 49(6) GCIV.  Not at all.  In fact I mentioned Article 49 in my commentary in Posting #5.



Tehon said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Because so many people, like yourself, were misinterpreting  Article 49(6), the that the ICRC made a plain text interpretation in 1958.  In that commentary, which you will find ti the right if the ISRC Page covering Article 49.  Just for your ease, I copied the applicable part here., with the important part in BOLD.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
*COMMENTARY OF 1958*

ARTICLE 49 [ Link ] -- DEPORTATIONS, TRANSFERS, EVACUATIONS
EXCERPT: PARAGRAPH 1. -- FORCIBLE TRANSFERS AND DEPORTATIONS
In order to make due allowances for that legitimate desire the *Conference decided to authorize voluntary transfers by implication, and only to prohibit "forcible" transfers *(4).

*Footnote #4:*
(4) [(2) p.279] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic
Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 759-760;​
You cannot simply read the language in a directive, law, ordinance, treaty, convention or other obligation and not read the interpretation (if any) that goes with it.

I know that the pro-Palestinians have often used Article 49(6) as a basis for saying the settlements are "illegal;"  but that is crafty propaganda.  They are truthful, but not telling the whole truth.  The ICRC Conference made it clear, it only applies to "forcible transfers."

The Paragraph that you ARE CITING 49(6) refers to "PROTECTED PERSONS."  The Israelis are "Civilians" -- BUT not "protected persons" for the purpose of the Geneva Convention as defined in Article 4 of the GCIV..

The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of *the words "transfer" and "deport"* is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.​
*Please Read Footnote #13, above, found on Page #6,* of the International Criminal Code "Elements of the Offense:"   "13 “*Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”.*

PLEASE UNDERSTAND what the intent of the prohibition was:  The entire purpose of this particular code is to prevent a reoccurrence of the actions by the NAZIs where the Jews were rounded up in Germany and Occupied Europe THEN sent to Extermination Camps in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, ,and Bełżec Poland,  Janowska Ukraine, Jasenovac Croatia, Maly Trostenets Belaruis, Natzweiler-Struthof France, etc, etc, etc...

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> No, I have not forgot about Paragraph 49(6) GCIV.  Not at all.  In fact I mentioned Article 49 in my commentary in Posting #5.
> 
> ...


Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israel plans and approves settlements.
> ...


What about the rest of my post?


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

I think you have this twisted-up.



Tehon said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > *Nor do they appear to understand that to be illegal, it must be a violation of "criminal" statute.  However, a violation of something not covered in the criminal code is not "illegal" but a violation of civil or tort law. *
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In think that is what I said.  We are talking about the International Criminal Statutes for the 2002 International Criminal Court.



Tehon said:


> I would think that the definition of "illegal" would constitute the violation of a law, international or otherwise, which I believe the Geneva Convention is an example of.


*(COMMENT)*

Well, the GCIV is an example of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).   It is not criminal law.  However, some of the prohibitions that are articulated within the GCIV, are also articulated within the Rome Statutes, (International Criminal Law). 

There is not just one system that completely describes the entire system of Laws.  There is Customary and IHL and Criminal.  And then there are non-binding pronouncements.  

I'll use something you might be familiar with to illustrate the difference: 




The creators attempted to dovetail them together.  For instance, General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) spells out the criteria for "Aggression."  However, the General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) which originally defined the Act of Aggression was non-binding in 1974 when it was created.  However, in 2010 _(Inserted by resolution RC/Res.6 of 11 June 2010)_, when the Rome Statute Article 8 - Crime of Aggression went into force, Article 8 gave legal importance to the non-binding resolution; incorporated by reference:  

Excerpt Article 8 (ICC)​
For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:​

Prior to 2010, the Act of Aggression was actually a violation of Treaty Law, The UN Charter, Article 2(4).

While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.

I hope this explains it a little better.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon, et al,

I just say your posting.  We are both looking at the very same commentary.



Tehon said:


> Yes sir I believe you are ignoring paragraph 6, which pertains to an occupying power transferring its own population into the occupied territory. The commentary that you promote is a commentary on paragraph 1 which pertains to the removal of people from the occupied territory.


*(COMMENT)*

We disagree with its application.  Luckily, the Criminal Code clarifies it. 

Israel, as the Occupying Power, cannot police up a segment of its population and transfer (or compel them forcibly) to the West Bank.

Israel may not arrest, detail and deport (forcefully) any segment of its population to the West Bank.

The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon, et al,
> 
> I just say your posting.  We are both looking at the very same commentary.
> 
> ...


We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice. 

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
ICRC service

You appear to be attempting to obfuscate by conflating two separate and independent paragraphs.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> I think you have this twisted-up.
> 
> ...


*While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.
*
I agree, but is anything contrary to law illegal?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon said:


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






 You forget two small problems in your haste to attack the Jews The first is that there is no deportation or forced transfer of Israelis, but a unilateral move to land under International law. Namely the Oslo accords * " The Israelis may, under the Oslo Accords, allow its citizens to transit from sovereignty Israeli territory to AREA "C" territory; where Israel has (by agreement with the PA) full authority."*

Secondly that the land is in fact Jewish owned and was stolen by force in 1949 by palestinian/Jordanian troops and annexed illegally. You can twist the words anyway you want it will not alter the facts or the truth*, the arab muslims have no legal claim to that land which is why it was handed to Israel under the Oslo accords*


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon said:


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








 Only in the country that enacts that particular law, and only if you are caught


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon, et al,
> 
> I just say your posting.  We are both looking at the very same commentary.
> 
> ...


It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary. Similar principles can come in from different places. This creates a web of laws that originated from different circumstances but may come to the same or similar place.

Settlements can violate other legal principles: The basic rights including territorial integrity, annexation of occupied land, non aggression, acquiring territory by force, and expropriation of property.

Article 49 is not the definitive criterion.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 Is the fact that the land was Jewish and still on the land registry as being Jewish not enough for you. The palestinians of Jordan and elswhere forcibly evicted the Jews from their homes in 1949 and took the property as theirs. This was ILLEGAL at the time and the UN made alterations to its charter to support the Jews if ever they reclaimed these lands. So the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are in breach of these rights and should be made to pay the price for their illegallity.


 Or will you deny the Jews the full weight of international laws that you try and impose for the benefit of the illegal arab muslim immigrants claiming the land today.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

Yours is a different view; but just as valid.   I will admit I find you seem to have a stronger position than I.



Tehon said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > While it is simpler for people outside the Law Enforcement and Legal/Judicial to think that anything against the law is a crime, it is not always the case.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Initially, I tend to think that when we say "illegal" in the context that we advance here in this discussion, we make some implications.  The term and its meaning are not quite as simple as you might think.


*What is ILLEGAL?*
Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

Law Dictionary: What is ILLEGAL? definition of ILLEGAL (Black's Law Dictionary)
Not authorized by law; Illicit ; unlawful; contrary to law.  Sometimes this term means merely that which lacks authority of or support from law; but more frequently it imports a violation. Etymologicaily, the word seems to convey the negative meaning only.  But in ordinary use it has a severer, stronger signification; the idea of censure or condemnation for breaking law is usually presented. But the law implied in illegal is not necessarily an express statute. Tilings are called "illegal" for a violation of common-law principles. And the term does not imply that the act spoken of is immoral or wicked; *it implies only a breach of the law*.​
Tilings are apparent surface violations.  As we use it here in these discussion, applicable to international law, it is slightly different in interpretation. 

Remember, using the simple definition, the Geneva Convention would not apple to the refugee action that occurred before November 1949.  Thus it would have not been contrary to law.  Similarly, the Arab Palestinians gave full jurisdiction to Area "C", which makes the settlements in compliance under that agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:
*International Illegality*

Four conditions are required to be met to constitute an international illegal act:

The breach must:
(1) be against the will of the complainant

(2) not be justifiable as, for instance, by the exercise of the right of self-defense

(3) be attributable or imputable to a subject of international law

(4) be voluntary​Summarizing, an international illegal act may then be defined as a voluntary unjustifiable act or failure to act which is not condoned and is attributable to a subject of international law.​*Jus Aequum vs. Jus Strictum*
_Jus aequum_ and _jus strictum_ are polar opposites in the principles of legal jurisprudence as are teleology and deontology in moral philosophy. The principle of _jus strictum _calls for the *strict and literal interpretation of legal rules*. From an historical perspective, this was the basis of international law. However, over the centuries, treaty practice has allowed *interpretation and application be done in a reasonable and equitable manner*, or _jus aequum_.
...clauses stipulating good faith or equitable treatment have gradually come to be regarded as *implicit* in international transactions of a consensual character. Thus, today it is true to say that in international treaty law and that part of international customary law which has its origins in treaties,_ jus strictum_ has been largely transformed into _jus aequum_.​


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I'm not sure that the law evolves as fast as conditions.



P F Tinmore said:


> It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary. Similar principles can come in from different places. This creates a web of laws that originated from different circumstances but may come to the same or similar place.
> 
> Settlements can violate other legal principles: The basic rights including territorial integrity, annexation of occupied land, non aggression, acquiring territory by force, and expropriation of property.
> 
> Article 49 is not the definitive criterion.


*(COMMENT)*

Relative to the Rome Statues, this is a critical point to be considered.

•  *PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW *

*Article 22 Nullum crimen sine lege  Page 18, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court*

1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court. 
2. *The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted. *
3. This article shall not affect the characterization of any conduct as criminal under international law independently of this Statute.​
Remember that many of these treaties, conventions and resolutions were formulated after the allegation of the crime.  Such laws cannot be applied retroactively.


Article 24 _Non-retroactivity ratione personae_

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute. 
2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> What about the rest of my post?



Irrelevant in law.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon said:


> We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.
> 
> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.



Did you read the paper included in the OP?  This law does not exist when examining other nations or conflicts.  Not that it is ignored -- but that it does not exist.  

49(6) prevents the forcible transportation of a population.  That is how it is understood everywhere in the world, in all cases.  There is no international law which requires a nation in conflict or in dispute over territory or even an occupying power to prevent the voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group to a particular territory or to reverse that migration. Such a law simply does not exist.  There are MANY cases of equivalence and in NO case is the "occupying power" required to prevent such a migration.  There are instances where the occupying power even provides significant incentive to the population to migrate.  And in NO case is this considered a contravention of international law.  

It is a case of literally making up a non-existent law to apply to only one place and one people.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is not as simple as many think. International law is evolutionary.



But a law must not be brought into existence, interpreted and/or applied inconsistently depending on who the actors are. It must exist, be interpreted and be applied equally to all.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > We are not talking here about transiting sir, we are talking about building settlements and paragraph 6 is quite clear in that it is deemed an unacceptable practice.
> ...


Article 49 paragraph 6:

*The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*
ICRC service

How can you misconstrue it or deny its existence?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause.  Sigh.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause.  Sigh.


Your cause is an attempt to legitimize the oppression of the Palestinian people.   and your cause.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Article 49 paragraph 6:
> 
> *The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*
> ICRC service
> ...



Israel neither deports nor transfers parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.  

Where territory is in dispute or there is an occupying power (keeping mind it is my opinion that Israel is NOT an occupying power in Areas C or in Gaza) -- it is not ILLEGAL to actively entice and provide incentives for civilian populations to voluntarily migrate.  It happens in many places in the world and it has never been found to be in contravention of international law. 

From the paper (which I highly recommend you read):

_To better understand what Art. 49(6) does in fact demand, this Article closely examines its application in all other cases in which it could apply. Many of the settlement enterprises studied in this Article have never been discussed or documented. All of these situations involved the movement of settlers into the occupied territory, in numbers ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands. Indeed, perhaps every prolonged occupation of contiguous habitable territory has resulted in significant settlement activity._

_Clear patterns emerge from this systematic study of state practice. Strikingly, the state practice paints a picture that is significantly inconsistent with the prior conventional wisdom concerning Art. 49(6). First, the migration of people into occupied territory is a near-ubiquitous feature of extended belligerent occupations. Second, no occupying power has ever taken any measures to discourage or prevent such settlement activity, nor has any occupying power ever expressed opinio juris suggesting that it is bound to do so. *Third, and perhaps most strikingly, in none of these situations have the international community or international organizations described the migration of persons into the occupied territory as a violation of Art. 49(6). Even in the rare cases in which such policies have met with international criticism, it has not been in legal terms.* This suggests that the level of direct state involvement in “transfer” required to constitute an Art. 49(6) violation may be significantly greater than previously thought. Finally, neither international political bodies nor the new governments of previously occupied territories have ever embraced the removal of illegally transferred civilian settlers as an appropriate remedy._

The examples given in the paper are East Timor, Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, Syria/Lebanon, Vietnam/Cambodia, Armenia/Azerbaijan, Russia/Georgia/Ukraine and The Baltic States.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause.  Sigh.
> ...



So, is it oppression to have a civilian population which is non-homogenous?  Or is the opposite true oppression?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 21, 2016)

Are the Jewish people being oppressed because Arab Palestinian Muslims live among them in Israel's sovereign territory?  How would you propose to end that oppression?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 21, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal.  No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.


*Israel Is Our Shield*

The Paleonasties don't have settlements; they have missile launching pads.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 21, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

I'm not sure you read the definition of "depart" and "transfer" ---



Tehon said:


> Article 49 paragraph 6:
> 
> *The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*
> ICRC service
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Deport is something on the order of expelling (a foreigner) from a country, typically on the grounds of illegal status or for having committed a crime.  So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?

Article 7 Crimes against humanity:  (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; 

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; 

The Rome Statutes did not go into force until 2002.  Israel is not a party to the Rome Statutes of the ICC.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Tehon (Sep 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> I'm not sure you read the definition of "depart" and "transfer" ---
> 
> ...


 * So if you are the Israeli Government, and you are deporting people from Israel to the West Bank, who are you departing to the West Bank?*

Whoever. To deport is to expel from one's country, there is no requirement that it has to be a foreigner. 

It was you who told me that it was imperative to read the commentary when examining the law. Well here it is and it explains the reason for the law. Fairly cut and dry as to the intent.



PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). *It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.*
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.
ICRC service


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...









 Well this is what you are doing as under no circumstances has Israel deported or transfered any part of its civilian population into area "C". You are reading into the Geneva convention something that is not there in the first place, and the evidence of this being so is the cherry picked tiny part you submit because the full transcript would spell out the reality.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


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









 So no comment on the arab muslims doing just that in 1949 when they forcibly deported the Jews out of the west bank and imported their own into the vaccuum left. Proving that you are not really interested in fair play, just in attacking the Jews and hounding them for your p[aymasters.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon,, et al,

Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.

In Posting #14, I discussed what it was suppose to prevent.

Remember, we are talking about the use of force to effect the deportation or transfer, and NOT a case like the Israelis that moved into the Area "C" (fully Israeli Authority) Settlements.



Tehon said:


> *It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.*


*(COMMENT)*

This is screwed-up here.  

The Germans were attempting to transfer and deport Jews and other undesirables to "Extermination Camps."  The Germans were not making arrests, round-ups, forced transport, and execution in a distant land for the purpose of "colonization."  

•  Wherever did you get that idea?​Separation ---- yes.  

•∆•  The INTENT was the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies and other undesirables _(the political and racial component)_.  
•∆•  The RESULT was to cleanse the population and leave behind the contemporary interpretation of the Aryan Race; people of European and Western Asian heritage.
•∆•  The exterminations would continue until all Germany could declare, going back three generations, their family was free of any undesirable heritage with "non-Aryans." ​
The Israeli Government DID NOT use "force" in the relocation of Jewish Citizens establishing settlements.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, RoccoR , it IS a lost cause.  Sigh.
> ...








 While yours is to Racially abuse and demonise the Jews because that is what you have been brainwashed to do. You try to legitimize the genocide of the Jews and the removal of their rights under International treaty and international law. All this is is a continuation of the Nazi's final solution and the muslims religious tenets.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,, et al,
> 
> Yes, we are talking about the very same thing.
> 
> ...


No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.

The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...








 We are just having a discussion about the legality of the settlements, don't get hysterical.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.



Tehon said:


> No sir, I don't believe we are talking about the same thing. Paragraph 6 very much prohibits the transfer of Israeli citizenry into the occupied territory. There are no caveats.
> 
> The commentary you highlighted and commented on was not mine. That is part of the commentary you said was imperative to understanding the law. I provided it for your benefit in hopes that you might gleen a better understanding.


*(COMMENT)*

Until you can provide such evidence that the Government of Israel issued a notice to some number of its citizens that they are transferred or deported (by order of), the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control) --- THEN the settlements in Area "C" are 100% voluntary moves on the part of the Israeli population.

•  No transfer by order of the Government.
•  No deportation by order of the Government.​
We will just have to disagree that there is some cause as prohibited by International Law.   Under Article 7(2d), Rome Statues, "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.  No segment of the Israeli population fits that bill.  The Israeli Government did not deport the Jewish Settlers, nor did the Israeli Government did not move, from one place to another, any portion of its population.  Settlements were voluntarily established. 

While it can be argued that the Israeli Government, exercising its full control over Area "C" --- PERMITTED it citizens to establish settlements, and may have even assisted the voluntary movement of its citizens, the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


* the independent movement by citizens with state permission is NOT prohibited by international law.*

Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree.
> 
> ...


the settlements of Israelis into the Area "C" (which the Palestinians have voluntarily relinquished control)​
The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

*Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law *(GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.


The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities
ICRC service​


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I've heard these arguments as well.

The Nobel Peace Prize 1994 - "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East:"

•  Yasser Arafat
•  Shimon Peres
•  Yitzhak Rabin

"Following Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, Arafat became the leader of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), an umbrella organization for Palestinian guerrilla groups. The groups resorted to terror to attract world attention, but it gradually became clear to Arafat that he would have to accept the state of Israel for the USA to be willing to mediate in the dispute. He approved the meeting of Palestinian negotiators with Israelis at secret negotiations in Oslo."  *SOURCE:* Nobelprize.org​
It is hard to deny that the Internatonal Community did not recognize the Oslo Accords as legitimate, especially when that recognition included the form of the Nobel Prize.

The SECRET negotiations between the PLO and the Israelis in Oslo _(from which the nickname is derived)_, was universally recognized at the time


P F Tinmore said:


> The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.
> 
> The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  Point #1:  Pertaining to the issue of the "transfer."  The State of Israel did not "transfer" any of its population to the West Bank and Area "C."  The Israeli settlers are "voluntarily moving" to the West Bank.  The Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) prohibits the "_forcible"_ transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war.

•  Point #2:  There is a long tradition of legal confiscation and forfeitures when the government (any government) seizes property used in unlawful practices, and other reasons.  Nothing in the Oslo Accords suggests that some special authority was extended.

•  Point #3:  I do not believe that anyone postulated that the Oslo Accords even addressed the issue of property forfeitures and seizures beyond that authorized by law _(military necessity)_; and of course, such property as may have been used for unlawful purposes. 
​To say the Oslo Accords are "ILLEGAL" is to say that the treaties between warring parties is "illegal" since the victory in the land usually occupies that land.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


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








 Another thing you forget is that Israel occupied Jordans territory from 1967 to 1988 until Jordan turned it loose and made it anyones land. The arab muslims that had migrated there illegally had no ownership of the land so the land became whoever could hold it. The Jews being the legal owners under INTERNATIONAL LAW became the legal land owners once Jordan withdrew all claims to the land.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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






Detail these international laws that make the Oslo accords illegal then, and they have to be real international laws not your usual fake ones.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.



No, it is not prohibited.  Evidence that it is not prohibited is found in ALL the other examples where an Occupying State permitted or encouraged its own civilian population to migrate into occupied territory, often stating expressly that the intent was to change the demography of the territory for its own gain.  NEVER has 49(6) been applied in any of those circumstances.  NEVER has 49(6) been considered to have been applicable in any those circumstances.  

You are the one not looking objectively at the legal evidence.  Look objectively at Indonesia and Timor.  Look objectively at Morocco and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.
> 
> The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.
> 
> ...



I get what you are saying.  Similar to personal contract law -- you can't sign away your human rights nor can your rights be removed by the contract.  

Can you point specifically to the articles in the Oslo Accords where the rights of the Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian peoples are removed or renounced?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.
> ...








 Look no further than the occupation of gaza and the west bank in 1949 by the arab league members. Who then evicted the Jewish land owners and emigrated their own people into the vaccuum formed. Note that the pro islamonazi's dont respond to this when it is brought up


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Oslo accords are illegal by international law standards.
> ...









 Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's



I'm relatively confident there is nothing in the Oslo Accords which remove or reliquish Arab Muslim/Christian Palestinian rights.  He'll have nothing to respond with.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Dont put him on the spot as he will start to spam the board with of topic video's
> ...







 He will find some obscure paper written by an islamonazi propagandist and pass it of as customary international law.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Nothing you say here, even if it were true, alters Israel's responsibilities towards those whose land they occupy. The Geneva Convention's concerns are not with who owns the land, only with who lives on the land. People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6).

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
ICRC service


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> ... People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6)...



So many things wrong with this:

1.  Throwing out vague terms like "West Bank" has absolutely no legal weight.  There is no defined and bordered territory called the "West Bank".  It is a generalized term of convenience, not a legal status.  If you want to discuss legal issues, please use correct legal terms.

2.  Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty. 

3.  The presence of people of a particular ethnic group, of itself, does not harm, reduce or in any way change the sovereignty of a territory.

4.  There is no legal requirement for an Occupying Power to extend its obligation to protected persons to actively prevent voluntary migration of people of a particular ethnic group.  In fact, such a prevention of voluntary migration based on ethnicity would be in contravention of IHL.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is prohibited, paragraph 49(6) prohibits it and explains clearly why it did so. The fact is just an inconvenience to you at the moment, take your time and look at it objectively. You will see.
> ...


OJ got away with murder, does that invalidate all laws prohibiting murder? Your argument is ridiculous, why do you show such callous disregard for human rights laws.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



Oh boy.

1.  I take it by your response that you are not willing to look objectively at ALL the instances of voluntary migration of people of a nationality or ethnicity into territory under dispute.

2.  When unable to address a problem objectively, you appeal to emotion.

3.  Your appeal to emotion includes a damning assessment of both my personality and my position, both contrary to the evidence of my posting history on this board.

So, since you seem to be ignorant of what my argument is, let me outline it for you:

1.  BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have a right to self-determination, self-government, a State.  The rights of BOTH peoples are inherent and inalienable.

2.  The solution to the problem is through a peace treaty which reflects the concerns and interests of both parties and is mutually agreed upon.

3.  Ethnic cleansing, intentionally creating a homogeneous peoples in a given territory through various methods, is inherently morally incorrect and legally problematic.  What that MEANS, in this context, is that BOTH Israel and (the potential) Palestine must include members of both populations and anything which actively prevents this should be discouraged.  In no case in modern history is a territory required to be ethnically cleansed before sovereignty is established.  In fact, in all cases, the inherent rights of the residents, including those who immigrated voluntarily, are taken into consideration and become integrated into the new sovereignty.

4.  The sovereignty of each territory is not dependent on either territory being rid of the opposing group.

5.  The law which you are quoting is demonstrably NOT a law.  You are arguing that a law exists where in every other case it occurred it was not deemed to have been a law.  The correct analogy in your example is where there are eight instances in the world where a man has cut his wife's hair and in no case was the law against murder brought up.  Because cutting a woman's hair, while possibly a moral violation against the integrity of his wife, is not, in fact, illegal and not equivalent to murder.

And just to throw in my own appeal to emotion, I am having two other discussions on threads here today.  One is against a poster who thinks I should be nuked and erased from history simply because I belong to a certain group which is inherently evil.  The other is against a poster who claims he has nothing against the Jews but he has a big problem with Jews -- ooops, he meant to say Zionists, which are just, you know, Jews who want to live in their own homeland.  Kinda like the Palestinians do.

In contrast, let me outline what I _think_ your argument is.  And please feel free to correct me.

In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it.  Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State.  Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong.  It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group.  The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing.  It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places.  It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.

Now correct me, or admit which of us has a "callous disregard for human rights".


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > ... People living in the West Bank are being occupied by Israel therefore Israel has to afford those people protections stipulated by the convention, including 49(6)...
> ...


*2.  Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.*

Until such a time as this occurs Israel is occupying the land and subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention especially as it pertains to the human rights issues of those whose land is being occupied, i.e. 49(6).


*The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*

PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard. It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


*In order to have a viable Palestinian State there can't be any Jews in it.  Jews shouldn't be allowed to build on land which MIGHT one day become part of a Palestinian State.  Because having Jews in a Palestinian State would be terrible and morally wrong.  It is not legally permissible to have a State with more than one ethnic group.  The mere presence of a peoples of a differing ethnic group is inherently de-stablizing.  It is permissible, both morally and legally, to prevent people of a specific ethnic group from voluntarily migrating to new places.  It is permissible, both morally and legally, to limit migration based on ethnicity.*

I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you. All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> *2.  Final borders between Israel and the nascent Palestinian State are to be the subject of permanent status negotiations and treaty.*
> 
> Until such a time as this occurs Israel is occupying the land ....



What land, specifically is Israel "occupying"?  Pick an actual place and tell me if Israel is occupying it or not?  Then tell me what international treaty you are using to defend that choice.

Like, for example, I am a Jewish person.  I have Canadian citizenship.  I want to buy a house in, oh let's say, Ma'ale Adumim, am I permitted or not permitted according to you?  Why?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you.


Agreed.  I am asking for your personal opinion about what is either (or both) morally and legally correct.  



> All I know is that there exists a human rights code that says Israel is not permitted to inhabit the territory under its occupation and of which they are currently in violation. It is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory.



Yes.  Exactly.  You are regurgitating what you "know" to be "true" based on widespread and generally accepted "knowledge" of "reality".  I am challenging you to question whether the world is flat.  

How do you know the world is flat?  Well, EVERYONE says the world is flat!  Its just common knowledge.  

OR

 I have researched the flatness of the world extensively.  I have examined and explored every instance of the case for the world's flatness and come to my own conclusion.  



I would also suggest you examine the wording of your post.  You said:  "Israel is not permitted..." and then you said "it is illegal to build settlements in occupied territory".  You have exactly articulated the problem outlined in the OP and the article it brings up.  

It is a point of absolute, irrefutable, legal fact that is is NOT illegal to build settlements in occupied territory where the migration of peoples is voluntary BUT Israel is not permitted to do so.  THAT is the issue at hand.  It is a blatant case of having DIFFERENT legal rules for Israel (read: Jews).


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...



*You Dhimmis Are Doomed*

The "Palestinians" are nomadic desert bandits who never had a country.  After they cheered 9/11, no patriotic American should have the least bit of sympathy for their barbaric cause.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > I have no say in the decisions any future Palestinian State might make as to their immigration policies, and neither do you.
> ...


*It is a point of absolute, irrefutable, legal fact that is is NOT illegal to build settlements in occupied territory where the migration of peoples is voluntary BUT Israel is not permitted to do so.  THAT is the issue at hand.  It is a blatant case of having DIFFERENT legal rules for Israel (read: Jews).
*
 If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon

Let's ask another fun one.  I'm an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin.  Am I permitted or not permitted, according to you, to move to Ma'ale Adumim?  Why?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.



Ha!  You still haven't read the article posted in the OP, have you?

Find me an instance where Morocco, as an example, is cited to have violated 49(6).  Or perhaps where British citizens are cited to be violating 49(6) in Cyprus.  Or any other instance of 49(6) being violated by the voluntary migration of peoples.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > If you had a case to make in refuting 49(6) I'm sure you would make it instead of making foolish requests of me to examine the curvature of the earth.
> ...


I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon
> 
> Let's ask another fun one.  I'm an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin.  Am I permitted or not permitted, according to you, to move to Ma'ale Adumim?  Why?



Assuming Ma'ale Adumim is on occupied land you would not be permitted to move there.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)



No one is requesting that 49(6) be invalidated.  We are asking that Israel be treated as all other nations are treated with respect to 49(6).


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > I have perused the article you posted and found the source paper and perused it. Nothing in either invalidates 49(6)
> ...


*No one is requesting that 49(6) be invalidated.*

Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.



Not at all.  Of course its legitimate law.  But if it is not relevant law in other situations it should not be relevant law with respect to Israel (read: Jews).


----------



## Tehon (Sep 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you are, you think that because it wasn't cited in other situations it is not a legitimate law, your entire OP is predicated on it.
> ...


*Of course its legitimate law.*

Then the thread title should read "Settlements" Are Illegal- but it's not fair


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Are you being intentionally obtuse?


----------



## Shusha (Sep 22, 2016)

Man in Morocco cuts wife's hair.

International response:  "Not illegal"

Man in Cyprus cuts wife's hair. 

International response:  "Not illegal"

Man in Timor cuts wife's hair.

International response:  "Not illegal"

Man in Israel cuts wife's hair.

International response:  "Murderer!"


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've heard these arguments as well.
> 
> ...


Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 22, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

Yes...   It would help if you knew what that meant.



Tehon said:


> *The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.*



[*(COMMENT)*


*• No transfer by order of the Government.
• No deportation by order of the Government.*​
"*Deportation* or forcible *transfer* of population" means _*forced displacement*_ of the persons concerned by *expulsion or other coercive acts* from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;"  Article 7(2d), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

*(QUESTION)*

What Israeli Citizens in the West Bank are you claiming meet this criteria?  

Most Respectfully
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Interesting...



P F Tinmore said:


> Treaties and agreements are not illegal, per se. But if an agreement violates the rights of people the short answer is that it is illegal.


*(QUESTIONS)*


What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
What is the source of these "Rights." 
*(COMMENT)*

So it is your contention that no matter what form of agreement, treaty, or accord takes, if Israel had effective control over the West Bank, any agreement, treaty, or accord is invalid and unlawful.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 22, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> ...


That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Interesting...
> 
> ...



What particular "Rights of the People" were violated?
What is the source of these "Rights."
Where ya been?


----------



## Spare_change (Sep 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Even without the Mandate explicitly stating the territory was for the purpose of creating a Jewish National Home, still, the "settlements" are not illegal.  No settlements like this anywhere in the world are illegal.


Well, except the one we set up in Central Park ... or the one on the White House lawn ... or the one I'm going to set up in your backyard. Me and some the homeless guys need a new place to hang out.

Your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Tehon (Sep 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> Yes...   It would help if you knew what that meant.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> What Israeli Citizens in the West Bank are you claiming meet this criteria?



That criteria does not apply to Israeli citizens in the occupied territory as they are the occupiers. 
The definition that you promote here defines "Crimes against humanity" as it relates to the jurisdiction of the ICC. The intent of the provisions is to protect the human rights of the occupied from their occupiers. The key phrase from that definition is "*from *the area in which they are lawfully present". It is clearly a statute designed to protect the human rights of the occupied from the occupier by preventing the occupier from forcibly removing the occupied* from* their land. 

Juxtapose this with the Geneva Conventions and clearly we can see the intent of 49(6) 


> The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population *into* the territory it occupies.


is to prevent the transfer of the civilian population of the occupier *into* the occupied territory and there are no caveats to the provision.

The distinction between occupied and occupier when discussing the transfer of people is further explained in the commentary to 49(6), which I have already posted several times at your request and will now highlight for your benefit yet again.

*PARAGRAPH 6. -- DEPORTATION AND TRANSFER OF PERSONS INTO
OCCUPIED TERRITORY*

This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race.
The paragraph provides protected persons with a valuable safeguard.* It should be noted, however, that in this paragraph the meaning of the words "transfer" and "deport" is rather different from that in which they are used in the other paragraphs of Article 49, since they do not refer to the movement of protected persons but to that of nationals of the occupying Power.
It would therefore appear to have been more logical -- and this was pointed out at the Diplomatic Conference (14) -- to have made the clause in question into a separate provision distinct from Article 49, so that the concepts of "deportations" and "transfers" in that Article could have kept throughout the meaning given them in paragraph 1, i.e. the compulsory movement of protected persons from occupied territory.*

Don't take my word for it, the ICJ has already weighed in on Israel's flagrant violations of international law.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

The Security Council has thus taken the view that such policy and practices "have no legal validity". It has also called upon "Israel, as the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously" by the Fourth Geneva Convention and:
"to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
and, in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories" (resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979)i.

The Council reaffirnned its position in resolutions 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 and 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980. Indeed, in the latter case it described "Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrantis in [the occupied] territories" as a "flagrant violation" of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure what your background is but I'm thinking that you sir should know better than to be making the argument that you are making.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."



P F Tinmore said:


> That is not the issue. It is that Israel violates virtually all of the rules of occupation. And then Israel says that the "Palestinians" authorized them to do it.


*(REFERENCE)*

•  Art. 42 HR 1907: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

•Art. 43 HR 1907: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

•  Excerpt Art 68 GCIV:  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. ...

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

*(COMMENT)*

The continuation, expansion, and strictness of the (contentious) occupation is owed largely to the making by the Arab Palestinians.  

You talk about how Israel "violates virtually all of the rules" --- does not compare at all to the blatant and open disregard for life the Palestinians have demonstrated over the last half century, clearly describes the type and kind of people the Arab Palestinian of the territories occupied since 1967 truly are.

Starting with the 1967 assassination by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian, which killed Robert F. Kennendy in Los Angeles, California, we find that scope and nature of the threats presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP).

The HoAP don't attack and kill unarmed civilians incidental to the targeting of legitimate military targets (which in itself is a violation of Article 68, GCIV); but specifically target non-military locations with the specific intent of killing unarmed women and children.  Whether that be: _(I'll try to pick a representative sample coving the spectrum of attacks.)_

PLO Fedayeen ambushing a bus of American Pilgrims to the Holy Land.
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) launching rockets at the American Embassy, and the JFK Library in Beirut.
Members of Black September/Fatah openly attacking an Olympic Team in Munich.
Fatah planting a bomb onboard TWA Flight 841, from Athens, killing all passengers.
An open area bombing attack in downtown Jerusalem; in which Fatah claimed responsibility.
The PFLP launched an attack in the Istanbul terminal at the El Al counter.
PLO terrorists open fire on a Tel Aviv recreational beach killing dozens, including Gail Rubin, niece of U.S. Senator Abraham Ribicoff.
PLO attack on worshippers walking home from a synagogue in Hebron, including an American.
A PLO stabbing attack in a Hebron marketplace.
PFLP took control (piracy) of the MS Achille Lauro, sailing from Alexandria, Egypt, to Israel; killing a disabled American and throwing the body over-board.
A member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) seized control of the steering wheel of a crowded bus enroute from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and drove the bus off a cliff in the area of Kiryat Ye'arim. 
A HAMAS suicide bomber detonated on a commuter bus in Jerusalem.
A Palestinian gunman opened fire on tourists at an observation deck atop the Empire State building in New York.
This is not to mention the HoAP using cars to rundown people in the market place, or running loose on the street stabbing just anyone.  Nor did I take into account the over 14000 rockets indiscriminately launched since the turn of the century; into Israel.  Nor does this take into account the incitement to violence, and the HoAP taking the position that:

Each and every one of these types of SALW attacks, suicide bombings, hi-jackings, kidnappings and murders violated either a treaty/charter specific prohibition, an Customary and International Humanitarian Law, or binding resolution.  

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. | The Geller Report

Three weeks ago, a sports festival organized by Fatah and the PLO provided an opportunity to "renew our commitment and loyalty to the blood of the Martyrs," as PLO representative Abu Zaid said (cited by PMW) in specific reference to two terrorists who murdered 46 Israelis between them.  Source:  
*Palestinian Incitement to Violence Continues Unabated*​
“In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:



It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.

It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.

It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.

It is carried out by sub-national groups—not by the army of a country.”

This is subjective, but you can see a clear set of similarities between the Jihadist, Fedayeen, insurgents, rebels and revolutionaries of the asymmetric, low intensity conflict exemplified by the HoAP.

The HoAP represent a threat to both regional and international peace and security.  The mitigation technique is the application of containment procedures.  And as long as the State of Palestine presents these types of threats, the greater the Israelis will ratchet down the countermeasures.  The HoAP don't just represent a threat to the US and Israel, but they represent a destabilizing threat to each of the adjacent Arab League countries that have evolved in the last half century.  

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is just another generalized complaint, "violates virtually all of the rules."
> 
> ...


The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations.

*3. What are the most important principles governing occupation?  *

The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).

The main rules of the law applicable in case of occupation state that:


*The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.*


*Occupation is only a temporary situation,* and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.


*The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.*


*The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.*


*To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.*


The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.


*Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.*


*Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.*


*Collective punishment is prohibited.*


The taking of hostages is prohibited.


*Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.*


*The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.*


*The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.*


*Cultural property must be respected.*


*People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).*


*Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.*
ICRC service

The purpose of Israel's occupation is not to ensure public order and safety. It is a means to further its hundred year old settler colonial project.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



"The response of the Palestinians, armed and unarmed, to Israel violations is what the liars call terrorism. They are responses to Israel's violations."

I'm afraid yours are stereotypical excuses employed to justify islamic terrorism.

If you familiarize yourself with the Hamas Charter, you will note repeated references to islamist ideological (politico-religious), perspectives. You should take the time understand the islamist concept of _waqf_. That exact term appears in the Hamas Charter. All of this has been explained to you before so pleading ignorance is not an excuse. Insensate Jew hatred is a core component of islamist ideology, thus references in the Hamas Charter to the destruction of Israel.

It's a shame that you're reduced to mere slogans and pleas to ignorance as a means to justify islamic terrorism as a means to further Islamist ideology.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 23, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...






 BULLSHIT


 The land was never arab muslim but Jewish. The arab muslims invaded in 1947 and evicted the Jews from their land and then passed laws to steal the title and make it theirs. In 1967 the arab muslims attacked again in the futile hope of stealing more Jewish land and were beaten back, losing what they had stolen in 1949. The Jews reclaimed what was rightfully theirs under International law. this was reflected in the Oslo accords that reinforced the Jews rights to that land.

 You know that "right of return" that you Jew haters love to spew out, well this is an example of how it actually works, just the same as it works for you if a scumbag steals your car and you take it back. Does the scumbag have the right to claim you stole their property, or would he be arrested for theft if he went to the police ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 23, 2016)

Tehon said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Tehon said:
> ...









 No it means that he hired a good Lawyer who got him off.  That does not invalidate the laws, the next case might not be as easy to win. Where the mant thousands of blacks lynched by the US people not indicitive of the whole of the US being racist murderers using your criteria ?


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 What violations are these then, itemise them so we can see what they developed from. No doubt we will see that it was attacks by arab muslims allied to one of the many known and proven terrorist groups operating in the area.




 Now what time limit is placed by your link to the occupation 

 Agreed which Israel does in all cases, and applies Jordanian law as required

 Hard to do when the occupied are using terrorism to kill innocents, so many are killed under Jordanian law

 Which Israel does, but it does not mean they must provide for people shot in the act of a crime

 Never happened

 Never happened

 None in evidence outside of your fantasy world

 Unless and I will leave you to fill in the rest

 Tell that to the arab muslims

 Done so stop whining when they are found guilty

 Which is a given


 So what does your post bouil down to other than your usual islamonazi propaganda whinge


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well let's run through some of these.



P F Tinmore said:


> The duties of the occupying power are spelled out primarily in the 1907 Hague Regulations (arts 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV, art. 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law.


*(COMMENT)*

Any country can decide that a treaty is no longer in its best interest and just quit it (terminate).

Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.  Any Israeli Action may be justified if it furthers regional peace and security affecting Israel and is a set of  effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression.  In the beginning, the Arab League and the elements represented by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) stipulated the threat by "OATH" (Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee).  This same threat was essentially repeated in the 1968 Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Charter, as well as the call to Jihad in the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, and again repeated in the 2012 Policy Statement.  While the Hashemite Kingdom and the Government of Egypt have both come to terms for peace, abandoning the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Lebanon has not and operated against Israel through the Hezbollah proxy, with the Stability in Syria unable to rational come to terms and may itself be a government about to collapse.

Having said that, and outline the type and kind of the threat presented by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) in Posting #84, it is not in the best interest of the Jewish State of Israel to further allow the further development of threat capacities and capabilities in addition to those already used against Israel and its territorial integrity, political independence, and commercial and economic interests --- in any other manner inconsistent with maintain the preace and security of the citizens of Israel (again see Posting #84).



P F Tinmore said:


> Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47) and protected persons themselves can in no circumstances renounce their rights (GC IV, art. 8).


*(COMMENT)*

Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- to deprive the population (HoAP) or any protections.  And Israel IS NOT attempting to --- or advocating for --- the renouncement of "rights."  In the case of the HoAP, they are setting the condition under which Israel may be able to help improve conditions; except for the fact that the HoAP are actively working against the performance.  Thus action taken to settle regional and international disputes by peaceful means, prevented by the actions outline in Posting #84 is a case of non-performance on the part of the HoAP.




P F Tinmore said:


> The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.


*(COMMENT)*

There are a couple of questions here that need litigated.

...a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
SOURCE:  Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Opinion regarding Eastern Greenland, ICJ Reports 1933, p. 45 {territory disputed between Denmark and Norway).​
The territory Occupied in 1967 by the Israelis was sovereign Jordanian territory at the time effective control was establish. The Hashemite Kingdom abandon that territory in JUL 1988:  

Occupation is the acquisition of _terra nullius_ – that is, territory which immediately before acquisition belonged to no state _(example, the West Bank AUG 1988)_. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. Abandonment of territory requires not only failure to exercise authority over the territory, but also an intention to abandon the territory. […] Nowadays there are hardly any parts of the world that could be considered as _terra nullius_. […] Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control by the purported sovereign”. Not to be confused with concept of foreign military occupation.​it was only because the Israeli Government recognized the "right of self-determination" that the they permitted the declaration of independence by the PLO over the same territory over which Israel maintained "effective control."  It should be notice, that not withstanding UN recognition, the PLO _(sole representative of the Palestinian People, 7th Arab League Conference)_ has -- at no time since declaring independence. but before 1995 (Oslo II), has the Palestinians maintained effective control --- later 2005 (Gaza Strip), Israeli unilateral withdrawal.



P F Tinmore said:


> Occupation is only a temporary situation,





P F Tinmore said:


> and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.


*(COMMENT)*

Who is arguing otherwise.  It is not mandated but has been stated that the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable up to one-year after the close of hostilities.  The HoAP has not permitted a term of peace for a year since the time of the Armistice.  

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; Article 6, GCIV.




P F Tinmore said:


> The occupying power must respect the laws in force in the occupied territory, unless they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the international law of occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a Hague Regulation (Article 43) requirement.  However it is not binding in that, the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank 31 JUL 1988.  The PLO did not declare independence until 15 NOV 1988.  During that interim period, Israel was the only Article 42/43 Legitimate Power.  The laws at the time the the laws in force at the time the PLO Declared Independence were default to Israeli Law.




P F Tinmore said:


> The occupying power must take measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety.





P F Tinmore said:


> To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

The limiting factor here is that of the HoAP.  For the last half century, the HoAP have prevented the proper focus on these issues.  I know that the diversion of funding from the PLO Budget for Palestine has not impact on these issues.  In time of war, most social services suffer.  It is up to the leadership to establish peace such that funding can be redirected to meet the needs of the people.



P F Tinmore said:


> The population in occupied territory cannot be forced to enlist in the occupier's armed forces.


*(COMMENT)*

I honestly did not know that the IDF was forcibly conscripting HoAP.  News to me...




P F Tinmore said:


> Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.





P F Tinmore said:


> Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.


*(COMMENT)*

This has been discussed to death.  Some HoAP added that "regardless whether forcible or voluntary" phrase.  The Rome Statues of the ICC does not say that.  The Article 7(1d) Crimes Against Humanity page 3 says:

•  (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; ​And Article 7(2d) page 4, defines it more specifically:

•  (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law; ​


P F Tinmore said:


> Collective punishment is prohibited.





P F Tinmore said:


> The taking of hostages is prohibited.


*(COMMENT)*

There is a difference between the level seriousness and the gravity of the crimes allegedly committed in the situation the Office shall consider various factors including their scale, nature, manner of commission, and impact.  In the last half century, the magnitude, number, number seriousness and gravity of the allegations are all relatively small.  if you assess just since the Rmoe Statutes when into force, the number is quite small.  However, just since the time the Rome Statues went into force, the HoAP activity that might reach the level s for consideration is not easily counted.  There are some 14,000(+) indiscriminate rocket launches alone.




P F Tinmore said:


> Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.





P F Tinmore said:


> The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
> The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.


*(COMMENT)*

Each complaint in these categories, must be evaluated individually.  

PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
*Article 22(2) Page 18 Nullum crimen sine lege*

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.​


P F Tinmore said:


> Cultural property must be respected.


*(COMMENT)*




P F Tinmore said:


> People accused of criminal offences shall be provided with proceedings respecting internationally recognized judicial guarantees (for example, they must be informed of the reason for their arrest, charged with a specific offence and given a fair trial as quickly as possible).
> Personnel of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian activities. The ICRC, in particular, must be given access to all protected persons, wherever they are, whether or not they are deprived of their liberty.



*(COMMENT)*

Well, this is one of those thing that is varied from country to country.  Some terrorist never see the judicial system.  You just put a diaper on them and set them in the corner.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Are you being intentionally obtuse?


*Air-Conditioned Ethics*


Paper laws scribbled by ignorant know-it-alls do not create a new and higher reality.  The blind conceit of those ambitious imbeciles and their Born to Rule attitude lead to unworkable organizations such as the UN.  And we are supposed to believe it is any different from the League of Nations just because self-appointed mindless mentors tell us so?  Or how about the Kellogg-Briand Pact?  That piece of paper outlawed war in 1928.  And the Geneva Convention kills fighting men in order to save cowards who refuse to openly take sides.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 23, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street,  et al,

Well, in some respects, there is a point to be made here.  I'm not sure I would use that strong of language --- but, there is a point to be made.



The Sage of Main Street said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Are you being intentionally obtuse?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Ethics and Morality, they are tough and very hard learning points; but America has grappled with it several times.   The conclusion is that you cannot legislate morality.  The two biggest examples are "Prohibition" and "Abortion."  Both were very contentious and controversial.  But what we discovered was that the backlash of the legislation to limit or prohibit, can be more damaging as a cure than the unethical or immoral act that it attempts to control or prohibit.  Prohibition created the catalyst for multi-level set of criminal enterprise from the vertical integration of the manufacture, storage in barrels, bottles, transportation and sale of prohibited alcohol, on one vertical rise.  And then the infrastructure of the of speakeasies, night clubs and blind tiger establishments.  America lost more tax revenue, and suffered more criminal gang wars and hijackings then it ever saved in terms of salvation for the drinkers.  Similarly, the criminalization in some venues, and systematic obstructive regulations created a back alley abortionist supported by those in need, and an entirely new line of contraception; in terms of medication and devices.


In January of 1920 the American government banned the sale and supply of alcohol, the government thought that this would curb crime and violence, prohibition did not achieve it’s goals, leading more toward higher crime rates and excessive violence.

The medical staff often refuses to help and will even harass women about their botched abortion. 600,000 maternal deaths occur each year. Seventy thousand (70,000) of those maternal deaths are from the complications of unsafe abortion which represents 12 to 13% percent of maternal deaths.​
You CANNOT legislate morals and ethical standards.



The Sage of Main Street said:


> The blind conceit of those ambitious imbeciles and their Born to Rule attitude lead to unworkable organizations such as the UN.  And we are supposed to believe it is any different from the League of Nations just because self-appointed mindless mentors tell us so?  Or how about the Kellogg-Briand Pact?  That piece of paper outlawed war in 1928.  And the Geneva Convention kills fighting men in order to save cowards who refuse to openly take sides.


*(COMMENT)*

Humanitarian Laws (IHL) also can have an adverse effect.  In the case of the Arab-Israeli War, had the pre-1949 Geneva Convention had been applied there would probably have been an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict in 1967-68 at the latest.  But Current Customary and IHL is geared to quell violence and obstruct the decisive illumination of the opponents will to fight.  While it does not reduce the overall number of deaths, it certainly extends the length and duration of the conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Tehon (Sep 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The Sage of Main Street,  et al,
> 
> Well, in some respects, there is a point to be made here.  I'm not sure I would use that strong of language --- but, there is a point to be made.
> 
> ...


Yeah, damn those pesky humanitarian laws. People can't even steal land anymore unmolested.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well let's run through some of these.
> 
> ...


Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.​
Colonialism is an aggressive act. The Palestinians are defending themselves.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



That's funny.

Taqiyya is not going to help you here. Islamic terrorism is not defending anyone.

You should read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in gee-had. So, I read the Hamas islamo-fascist Charter. It was tedious, incondite, and long-winded, but instructive nevertheless in demonstrating a firm religious basis for the violent expansion of Islamic supremacy through gee-had. I found this sanction and obligation for holy war in the Hamas Charter consistent with the islamo-fascist rambling of the Moslem Brotherhood and confirmed and reinforced when I read the hadith (the collections of sunnah—the deeds, behavior, and words of Muhammad (swish) and his companions) of Bukhari and Muslim, which are considered to be wholly authentic. Throughout the sunnah, gee-had is glorified as a supreme act of faith. I've also read _Sirat Rasul Allah_, Muhammad's (swish) sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, the _'Umdat al-Salik_ manual of Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence as applied in shari'ah law), works by Sayyid Qutb, Ibn Taimiyyah, Abul-A`la al-Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, and any other writings I could find from islamo-sheikhs and scholars.

Are you really suggesting that 14,000 rockets fired at Israel, stabbings, shootings, islamo-tunnels, car bombings and an entire islamo-welfare fraud dedicated to furthering Islamic terrorism is simply Islamic terrorists "defending themselves"?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 24, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I agree 100%.  Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.  

As we have discussed before, the UN Special Committee on decolonization (C-24), was established to monitoring the implementation of the Declaration [A/RES/1514 (XV)].  Annually C-24 up-dates the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Codified in the UN Charter, is the "Right of Self-Defense;" which is in most cases, the authoritative document.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Very much like my discussion here, with our friend "Tehon," understanding the terminology and its applicability is essential.  While there areas in the world that are applicable in the sense of A/RES/1514 (XV), NONE of them are anywhere near the Middle East Theater.  While there may be grounds for complaint, by the Arab-Palestinian, relative to _(what is often called)_ the "territories occupied since 1967" --- as denoted in the Status of Palestine in the United Nations (A/RES/67/19), you will not find "Palestine" _(as defined in the Resolution on the Question of Palestine A/RES/43/177)_ on the table of Non-Self-Governing Territories as created by UN C-24.

I do understand that in using the word/phrase "colonial settlements," you are mimicking the PLO-NAD perspective.  In doing so, you are using a political concept of the word/phrase, as opposed to what is actually true in realistic terms.


2. Is the Palestinian leadership against negotiations? No. Negotiations are necessary to reach a final status agreement and to define the future relations between Israelis and Palestinians. However, Israel has used negotiations as a smokescreen to further colonize Palestine with more colonial settlements. The State of Palestine is committed to any and all serious initiatives to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but it is not committed to any proposals to legitimize Israeli occupation or to cultivate Israel’s culture of impunity. It is time for the international community to hold Israel accountable rather than using negotiations to disguise its inaction and failure to assume its responsibility toward the land and people of Palestine. - See more at: Questions and Answers on Negotiations and Internationalizations​
In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians _(as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19)_ are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine)_ as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].


"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."​
The PLO-Negotiation Affairs Department (NAD) has an excellent outline on the Six Questions for Resuming Negotiations.  While I do not agree to that these questions or issues should be a barrier to talks, I think this is well worth the reading.  It will help everyone to understand the "Palestinian" view-point. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I agree 100%.  Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.
> 
> ...


Interesting political opinions.

But I am running on the facts on the ground.

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate


----------



## Tehon (Sep 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I agree 100%.  Colonialism, as (I assume) we are discussing here, as it is related in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [A/RES/1514 (XV)], does not really apply to the Middle East.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> In the sense of self-defense, the Palestinians _(as defined in A/RES/43/177 and A/RES/67/19)_ are Belligerents under Occupation that have chosen conflict _(Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine)_ as the means to resolving territory disputes --- contrary to Chapter 1 - Article 2(4), UN Charter and Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/2625 (XXV)].
> 
> 
> "Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."



Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If you are talking about uniquely Hebrew supernaturals, monsters and demons, most come directly from biblical forklore _(like Lilith)_.  Otherwise, it is hard to distinguish imaginary monsters and the men that become monsters - like HAMAS.



P F Tinmore said:


> Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?


*(COMMENT)*

The Jewish have this type of Demonic Possession or Entity that captures souls (the human spirit).   It is very similar to the demon that is depicted in movies like the "*Exorcist*."   The Jewish call it a "*Dybbuk*." 

But before HAMAS, there was a man that many thought turned from good to evil as early as the 1920's; he as a Syrian Imam, and old fashion Islamic revivalist.  His name was Izz ad-Din al-Qassam; the name sake for the HAMAS rocket. _ [The Qassam-3 is a 170mm Rocket that was introduced by HAMAS in 2005 (the year of the unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.)]_  Izz ad-Din al-Qassam formed Insurgent cells to attack British and Jewish soft-targets; usually at night.

*(ANSWER)*

While there are some that believe the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, was a disguised evil; for sure the Islamic Evangelist Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was definitely evil.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 24, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

The question is irrelevant.

"The Accords were the result of various negotiations between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in an attempt to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Accords stipulated that the Palestinian Authority be officially recognized by Israel as the governing body of the Palestinian people and be afforded self-government in parts of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The PLO in turn recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced its intent to attack and destroy that state. Such "permanent issues" as border security and Israeli settlements were left out of the accords purposely, to be resolved in other talks. The agreement was signed by Mahmoud Abbas (PLO) and Shimon Peres (Israel)."

*Primary Sources:  **Oslo I Accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements)*
Published September 13, 1993

Exchange of Letters:  *3. LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER RABIN TO YASSER ARAFAT:*



Tehon said:


> Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?


*(OBSERVATION)*

It actually does not matter what the Government of Israel thinks. 

The State of Palestine Accedes to the Rome Statutes  ICC-ASP-20150107-PR1082
On a related development, the Government of Palestine accepted, by means of a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the ICC jurisdiction since 13 June 2014. On 7 January 2015, the ICC Registrar addressed a letter to the government of Palestine accepting this declaration and transmitted it to the Prosecutor for her consideration.

*Phase 2: Subject-matter jurisdiction
Jurisdiction – General status*
On 1 January 2015, the Government of Palestine lodged a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over alleged crimes committed "in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014". On 2 January 2015, the Government of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute by depositing its instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General. The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 April 2015.

*





Palestine, State of*
*Ratification and Implementation Status:*
State of Palestine acceded to the Rome Statute on 2 January 2015. The Rome Statute will enter into force for the State of Palestine on 1 April 2015.

On a related development, the Government of the State of Palestine accepted, by means of a declaration under article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, the ICC jurisdiction since 13 June 2014.

*Last update:*
19/01/2015
​*(COMMENT)*

I think it is pretty clear, by the language used, that the Court believes their is a Government of Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Your response was pointless and irrelevant. 

What you're unable and unwilling to address is the very text of the Hamas Charter which does not concern itself with the "occupation" slogans but does reiterate standard Islamo-fascist ideological imperatives including gee-had, waqf and Jew killing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 24, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


There are about 12,000,000 Palestinians and only about 20,000 are Hamas and there are a verity of beliefs within those ranks. And you always throw up a few of the nutballs like all Palestinians are like that.

That is very misleading.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> If you are talking about uniquely Hebrew supernaturals, monsters and demons, most come directly from biblical forklore _(like Lilith)_.  Otherwise, it is hard to distinguish imaginary monsters and the men that become monsters - like HAMAS.
> 
> ...


Of course there are many Palestinian leaders. Dr. Mustafa Barghouti ran against Abbas in the 2005 presidential election. Barghouti ran in the Palestinian Initiation Party that is a party of peace that does not have a military wing. The US and Israel wanted Abbas and did whatever they could to have Abbas elected.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*The Eternal Nazislami*

Hitler.  They must have a persecution complex, right?  Why are they so paranoiac?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Ah. I see you're employed _The Tiny Minority of Violent Extremists™_, slogan.

I'm afraid clich'es and slogans aren't going to change the fact of virulent anti-Semitism endemic to Islam and the Arab world and especially apparent in the islamic terrorist enclaves of Gaza and the West Bank. You should spend a few minutes browsing _Palestinian Media Watch_. Individuals may act one way, and groups of them act another. This statistic doesn't take into consideration what the larger group _approves_ of. Not all people have to actually commit a particular act to _approve_ of it.

This sort of argumentation is merely an attempt to divest oneself of any responsibility from the consequences of the action of the ideology. Just because "not all Pal'istanians car bomb, stab, attack, vilify Jews and incorporate and instill Jew hatred in their young islamo-bot children" doesn't mean the social acceptance of institutionalized Jew hatred by Arabs-Moslems is in anyway mitigated.

You don't know your koran'ology as the Jews are depicted in the koran and several sunna in an extremely unfavorable light, which is easily interpreted as grounds to indulge in lurid hatred and persecution against them. In the Arab press, all manner of lies and slander about the Jews and Israel are presented as fact. To Arab/Moslem sensibilities, it is an affront that not only did the despised Jew return to claim his homeland, but he additionally brought democracy and developed the means to defend it. I think the fact that the Jews can fight back now--more than effectively--is a source of humiliation to the Arab-Moslem world.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Practice with me:

I blame the Jews_™
_
I blame the Great Satan_™
_
I'm a helpless child who won't accept responsibility for the choices I make_™_


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...Israel plans and approves settlements. Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities. That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible. That said, other things become involved like the destruction and expropriation of Palestinian property. Both illegal. The settlers do not move to Palestine. When they go they take Israel with them which is an illegal annexation of occupied territory.


The Israelis are taking what very little is left of Rump (Residual, Leftover) Palestine, one square city block, and one acre, at a time...

It's working great, isn't it?

Pretty soon, the few dumb- ass Palestinians who haven't wised-up and taken their families out of there, are gonna be standing on each other's shoulders, stacked 10 high, on two postage stamp -sized scraps of land, too small to take a shit in...

And there's not a goddamned thing you can do to stop it.

The beetle-browed Neanderthal Muzzies in Gaza and the West Bank are still deluding themselves that they've got any chance whatsoever...

They don't...

Time for them to acknowledge reality, accept ther defeat, pack up their families, and leave Eretz Yisrael forever, while they still can.

Life is too short to spend it on Totally Lost Causes.

Life is to be enjoyed.

Leave.

Live.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 25, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...Israel plans and approves settlements. Israel entices Israelis to move to those settlements by deals on homes and utilities. That may not be considered "forcible" but it is directly responsible. That said, other things become involved like the destruction and expropriation of Palestinian property. Both illegal. The settlers do not move to Palestine. When they go they take Israel with them which is an illegal annexation of occupied territory.
> ...


You are forgetting that the Palestinians outside of Palestine are a bigger threat to Israel than those still inside including Hamas.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh, don't think for a moment that huge segments of America have overlooked this potential threat.  It is just that under law, we are not permitted to treat this potentially "bigger threat" based solely on their membership in that group.



P F Tinmore said:


> You are forgetting that the Palestinians outside of Palestine are a bigger threat to Israel than those still inside including Hamas.


*(COMMENT)*

The mere fact that other Palestinians note and acknowledge these international threats only tends to strengthen the notion that "Palestinians outside of Palestine are a bigger threat" and should be dealt with accordingly.  It is a form of intimidation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 25, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh, don't think for a moment that huge segments of America have overlooked this potential threat.  It is just that under law, we are not permitted to treat this potentially "bigger threat" based solely on their membership in that group.
> 
> ...


I am not sure that I understand what you are trying to say.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


I'd have bet money on that.

So, outside of the countries of Gaza and the West Bank, where do we find these Islamic terrorist Pal'istanians living outside of Pal'istan? I just never realized there were so many Islamic terrorist countries that you refer to but don't seem to exist outside of your postings.


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:


Jordan 3,240,000
Israel 1,650,000
Syria 630,000
Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
Lebanon 402,582
Saudi Arabia 280,245
Egypt 270,245
United States 255,000 (the largest concentrations in Chicago, Detroit and Los Angeles (History of Palestinians in Los Angeles)-San Diego).
Honduras 250,000
Guatemala est. 200,000
Mexico 120,000
Qatar 100,000
Germany 80,000
Kuwait 80,000
El Salvador 70,000
Brazil 59,000
Iraq 57,000
Yemen 55,000
Canada 50,975                                                                                          Palestinian diaspora - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 25, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


Oh jeese!


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ...You are forgetting that the Palestinians outside of Palestine are a bigger threat to Israel than those still inside including Hamas.


Only for a generation or so, then, as they scatter to the Four WInds and lose whatever lightweight cohesion they already have, it becomes largely a non-issue.

Once the borders of Eretz Yisrael are secure (see 1922 partition proposal map for concrete definitions), they can deal with your Neanderthals, in the Outback...


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

fanger said:


> The countries outside the Palestinian territories with significant Palestinian populations are:





fanger said:


> Jordan 3,240,000
> Israel 1,650,000
> Syria 630,000
> Chile 500,000 (largest Palestinian community outside the Middle East).
> ...


Excellent...

That means that the so-called Palestinians will have *PLENTY* of places to go, once they shake off their delusion, pack up, and leave, forever...

It doesn't matter one little damn, whether Settlement A or B or C is legal or illegal...

Not one little bit...

From a functional, practical, Real-World perspective, you can wipe your backside with commentaries denoting legality of settlements...

Cutting straight to the chase, and bypassing all this happy horseshit, as events and history themselves are already doing...

*This* is how it all ends...






Regardless of whether that takes 100 years, or 1000...

Believe it...

Muslim-Arab squatters (so-called 'Palestinians') in Gaza and the West Bank are deluding themselves that it is going to end any other way...

Hell... with the flattening and blockade of Gaza, The Wall, and continuing Israeli encroachments, it's *already* damned-near a _fait accompli_...

And all the pissing and moaning and debate in the world isn't going to change that one little bit...

The Jews have won, the so-called Palestinians have lost...

The Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Turks and Saudis all understand this and have made peace with the idea...

Despite the occasional pro forma public remark or leftover policy fantasy to the contrary...

Yes... the Pali's Muslim-Arab neighbors have pretty much made peace with the idea...

Especially now that most of them are busy with their own civil wars, cultural collapse and societal fragmentation, thanks to the Arab Spring...

There is no Arab Cavalry coming over the hill to the rescue of the Palestinians, this time... _not that it ever did any lasting good, anyway_...

As for the beetle-browed Neanderthal fools of Gaza and the West Bank...

Might as well avoid the Christmas (Ramadan) Rush, and make peace with Reality...

Get out, while you still can...

Leave...

Live...


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

Next year in Al-*quds*


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

The *Jewish Autonomous Oblast* (Russian: Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть, _Yevreyskaya avtonomnaya oblast_; Yiddish: ייִדישע אווטאָנאָמע געגנט‎, _yidishe avtonome gegnt_[14]) is a federal subject of Russia (an autonomous oblast) in the Russian Far East, bordering Khabarovsk Krai and Amur Oblast in Russia and Heilongjiang province inChina. It is also referred to as "Yevrey"[15][_unreliable source_] (Yiddish: יעװרײ‎) and "Birobidzhan"[16] (Yiddish: ביראָבידזשאַן‎). Its administrative center is the town of Birobidzhan. As of the 2010 Census, JAO's population was 176,558,[9] making 0.1% of the Russia's total population. The JAO is Russia's only autonomous oblast[17] and, aside from Israel, the world's only Jewish territory with an official status.
Jewish Autonomous Oblast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

fanger said:


> Next year in Al-*quds*


*Hilarious, pathetic stuff, that...*






The so-called Palestinians aren't even a distinct people or religion...

Merely hybrid mutts-mongrels from various regional genetic inputs...

Laughable, idiotic losers who have sat around refugee camps and towns for nearly 70 years, with no end or good prospect in sight...

You lack a distinct identity...

You lack durable cohesion capable of holding together for millennia...

Come back and talk to us, when you've held yourselves together for 1878 years ( 1948 CE - 70 CD ) of Diaspora...

An admirable goal...

One that will _*never*_ materialize, in your case, as you lightweight hybrids scatter back into the Four Winds from which you came, and lose all cohesion, within a generation or two...

*"Next year..." ??? !!! ???*

You lack the brains...

You lack the muscle...

You lack the balls...

But thanks for the belly-laugh...

--------------------

Next contestant, please...


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

The Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Turks and Saudis all understand this and have made peace with the idea...


----------



## Shusha (Sep 25, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> You (Palestinians) lack a distinct identity...




This is no longer true.  The Palestinians have developed a strong identity over the past 50 years.  Its an identity which is based primarily on a reaction to external factors, in a false victimhood and some usurping of the enemies stories, but to deny its existence at this point is both foolish and dangerous, in my opinion.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 25, 2016)

fanger said:


> Next year in Al-*quds*



You do realize that your usurping of this phrase legitimizes it, and thus legitimizes the return of the Jewish people, yes?


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

Shusha said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Next year in Al-*quds*
> ...


You recognize Al-Quds, thats a start


----------



## Shusha (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> There are about 12,000,000 Palestinians and only about 20,000 are Hamas and there are a verity of beliefs within those ranks. And you always throw up a few of the nutballs like all Palestinians are like that.​
> That is very misleading.



I think you are the one being misled, if you believe only a small percentage of Palestinians hold a number of beliefs such as:

Israel has no right to exist, the Jewish people have no right to a national homeland, the Jews are inherently evil, terrorism is "freedom fighting" and therefore justifiable, martyrdom is noble, jihad is a holy obligation, the Jewish people have no connection or history to the land, etc.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 25, 2016)

fanger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



Not in the slightest.  I recognize you stole the phrase from the Jewish people.


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

Jews may claim, but they don't own the rights to words, even the word  Holocaust has a previous owner 
A *holocaust* is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives from the Ancient Greek _holocaustos_ (ὁλόκαυστος from ὅλος "whole" and καυστός "burnt"), which is used solely for one of the major forms of sacrifice.
Holocaust (sacrifice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## fanger (Sep 25, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Israel has no right to exist, the Jewish people have no right to a national homeland.


Agreed, No nation has a right to exist, it either exists or it doesn't


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 25, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ...You are forgetting that the Palestinians outside of Palestine are a bigger threat to Israel than those still inside including Hamas.
> ...


*Cana Is There, So It's Biblical Israel*

You should annex southern Lebanon now that Hezbollah is off fighting ISIS.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 25, 2016)

fanger said:


> Jews may claim, but they don't own the rights to words, even the word  Holocaust has a previous owner
> A *holocaust* is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives from the Ancient Greek _holocaustos_ (ὁλόκαυστος from ὅλος "whole" and καυστός "burnt"), which is used solely for one of the major forms of sacrifice.
> Holocaust (sacrifice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Appease Porridge Hot*

What the world needs is an Allahcaust, but it is instead trending towards a Dhimmicaust.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


So why would the US and Israel not want a man of peace, a man sometimes called the Palestinian Gandhi?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > You (Palestinians) lack a distinct identity...
> ...


Thank you for your opinion.


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 25, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Better yet... put a new _Christian_ Buffer State between the Muzzies of Lebanon and the northern Israeli border.

With the support of The West, to re-take some of Old Lebanon for the Christians, that should take care of the northern flank for a few centuries.


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.
> 
> ...


Although that Wonderful Jew Shimon Peres,RIP originally supported the Settlers....He later disowned them because he realized what they were doing was ILLEGAL end of STORY


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> > You (Palestinians) lack a distinct identity...
> ...


How AMAZING......like saying the Irish lacked identity when they were fighting for their freedom against the English......You Shucha are neither Wise or Clever,BUT YOU ARE BLOODY FOOLISH...VIVA THE PALESTINIANS,the WORLD JOINS YOU IN YOUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,against the ZIONIST HORDES.

Shusha Grow Up for Christs Sake


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 29, 2016)

theliq said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Kondor3 said:
> ...


"..._The world joins you in your fight?_..."







Au contraire... the world (_outside the creepy environs of Islam,anyway_) laughs at you, and knows you for the Fools and Losers that you are...


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I can only say Kondie,you have become somewhat Mental as the years have progressed,you may get a laugh with your Zionist Brethren,those Synthetic Jews but most would see your commentary for what it has surely become>>>>>MENTAL..steve


----------



## Challenger (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.
> 
> ...



A zionist shill advocates for the Zionist paradise, wow, what a surprise. He's entitled to his "legal" opinion. Here's a radical idea, why doesn't Zionist Israel join the ICJ, then he could put his case officially and settle the mater once and for all?

(Prepares to hold breath......thinks better of it as that's never going to happen; Kontrovich would be laughed out of court.)


----------



## Hollie (Sep 29, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> ...


Here's a thought: let's have your islamic terrorist heroes appear before the ICJ, subject to kuffar standards of justice to include discovery, interrogation of witnesses, presentation of evidence, etc.

It would be interesting to see your islamic terrorist heroes actually served with a subpoena to appear and watch as they choose to slither away, deciding that they have everything to lose.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

theliq said:


> How AMAZING......like saying the Irish lacked identity when they were fighting for their freedom against the English......You Shucha are neither Wise or Clever,BUT YOU ARE BLOODY FOOLISH...VIVA THE PALESTINIANS,the WORLD JOINS YOU IN YOUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,against the ZIONIST HORDES.
> 
> Shusha Grow Up for Christs Sake



Steve, I am on the side of the Palestinians.  I believe they should have a State and self-determination.  The only difference between me and you is that I think the Jewish people should have the same thing.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

Challenger said:


> A zionist shill advocates for the Zionist paradise, wow, what a surprise. He's entitled to his "legal" opinion. Here's a radical idea, why doesn't Zionist Israel join the ICJ, then he could put his case officially and settle the mater once and for all?
> 
> (Prepares to hold breath......thinks better of it as that's never going to happen; Kontrovich would be laughed out of court.)



Do you have any legal arguments to counter his?  Or are you just going to throw out appeals to emotion and logical fallacies like every one else so far?


----------



## Kondor3 (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > How AMAZING......like saying the Irish lacked identity when they were fighting for their freedom against the English......You Shucha are neither Wise or Clever,BUT YOU ARE BLOODY FOOLISH...VIVA THE PALESTINIANS,the WORLD JOINS YOU IN YOUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,against the ZIONIST HORDES.
> ...


The Palestinians already have a State of their own.

It's called Jordan.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > A zionist shill advocates for the Zionist paradise, wow, what a surprise. He's entitled to his "legal" opinion. Here's a radical idea, why doesn't Zionist Israel join the ICJ, then he could put his case officially and settle the mater once and for all?
> ...


There is nothing I would like better than an open, televised Israel/Palestine debate. On the Palestinian side I would like to see:

Legal
Susan Akram, Noura Erakat, Lamise Deek, Diana Buttu

History
Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappe

Advocates
Leila Farsakh, Karma Nabulsi

Who would you like to see on the Israeli side?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Ya Allah, dude. Anyone can witness the incessant screeching and cat calls done by those fine folks just by binge watching your silly YouTube videos.

What is served by being bored to tears with the droning intonation of
_The Zionist Entity™?  T_he stars of your YouTube videos seemingly compete against one another to see who can use that slogan the greatest number of times in their YouTube infomercials.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Its an interesting question.  Depends on what the purpose or question for point of debate is.  

Legal, you know I am fond of Jacques Gauthier and Eugene Kontorovich

.


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > How AMAZING......like saying the Irish lacked identity when they were fighting for their freedom against the English......You Shucha are neither Wise or Clever,BUT YOU ARE BLOODY FOOLISH...VIVA THE PALESTINIANS,the WORLD JOINS YOU IN YOUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,against the ZIONIST HORDES.
> ...


You have NO RIGHT to utter such a thing.......I have consistently PROMOTED A FREE AND PEACEFUL ISRAEL AND A FREE AND PEACEFUL PALESTINE.......again you have no right to LIE IN THIS WAY........even my adversaries know this clearly...steven


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Sorry Condie despite all your Zionist Bribing(Crime) more Countries in the world support Palestinians over Israel......so you comment is, like much of your commentary, destined for the DUSTBIN...LOL..........themagnificentliq......


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

Kondor3 said:


> The Palestinians already have a State of their own.
> 
> It's called Jordan.



Yes.  True.  I don't disagree with that.  

But after nearly 100 years of conflict, I think it is impractical (and immoral) to dismiss them as if they don't exist.  And I think it is impractical to simply incorporate them into Israel.  And I think it is impractical and immoral to ship them off to Jordan.  

I DO think that incorporating large Palestinian centers into Jordan, instead of Israel is a possibility.  But Jordan doesn't want them either.  (And for good reason).


----------



## Shusha (Sep 29, 2016)

theliq said:


> You have NO RIGHT to utter such a thing.......I have consistently PROMOTED A FREE AND PEACEFUL ISRAEL AND A FREE AND PEACEFUL PALESTINE.......again you have no right to LIE IN THIS WAY........even my adversaries know this clearly...steven



I stand corrected then.  You and I want the same thing.  I have been here a year and I don't think I have ever heard you support Israel.  

However, I hear you say an awful lot of extremely negative things about Zionists which seem to be incompatible with this desire of yours for a free and peaceful Israel.  

What do you think the solution to the conflict is?


----------



## theliq (Sep 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > You have NO RIGHT to utter such a thing.......I have consistently PROMOTED A FREE AND PEACEFUL ISRAEL AND A FREE AND PEACEFUL PALESTINE.......again you have no right to LIE IN THIS WAY........even my adversaries know this clearly...steven
> ...


Absolutely NEGATIVE ABOUT ZIONISTS because they have NO INTENTION TO MAKE PEACE and NEVER HAVE HAD............AND YOU ARE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT USE THE WORDS COMPATIBLE AND ZIONISTS FOR PEACE IN THE SAME SENTENCE FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.....THE ZIONIST DO NOT WANT PEACE(and I am rightly NEGATIVE about them)......THEY WANT TO DRIVE PALESTINIANS INTO THE SEA.

As for your comment about Jordan,the Palestinians never occupied any part of Trans Jordan......they were driven out of Palestine prior to and after 1948,your ignorance on this makes it difficult to respond to such prose.

Solution,well now I am a pragmatist and there will always be an Israel,Israel should give all the OCCUPIED LAND back plus the land the PALESTINIANS already have,to enable a Palestinian State/Nation.

If you think I was going to say DRIVE ALL THE JEWS OUT you and others are SADLY WRONG.steven


----------



## Challenger (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > A zionist shill advocates for the Zionist paradise, wow, what a surprise. He's entitled to his "legal" opinion. Here's a radical idea, why doesn't Zionist Israel join the ICJ, then he could put his case officially and settle the mater once and for all?
> ...



I don't pretent to be an expert on International Law. Kontrovich although qualified, holds a minority opinion amongst his peers and contradicts the International consensus regarding this subject. His is merely an opinion and that from an avowed advocate for the Zionist paradise, and like Dershowitz, to be taken with a pinch of salt.


----------



## theliq (Sep 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


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


I think you mean't "Pinch of Shit" Challenger..steve


----------



## Challenger (Sep 30, 2016)

theliq said:


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



Aah, you're right, perhaps I should have said "pinch of bullshit". Did you know Kontrovich gave up his job in the US emigrated to the Zionist paradise and now works full time for the Hasbara machine, there's a fanatic Zionist if ever there was one.


----------



## theliq (Sep 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> theliq said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Challenger? I bet he kept his USA Passport though...steve


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


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



It's safe to acknowledge that you have never been mistaken for an expert on international law.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


OK, but Kontorovich has.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Shirley, you can cut and paste a press TV produced YouTube video to refute the paper. 

While you're scouring YouTube, bear in mind that the work by Mr. Kontorovich is an opinion that is subject to peer review. Outside of islamic fear societies, there is this thing called _academic freedom_ where published works aren't subject to islamo-goons / islamo-mobs deciding over a bloody corpses what is allowed to be published outside of the egregious sin of _hurting Moslems feeling_s™


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.

He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.

His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


You should require the prayer leader at your madrassah to write a strongly worded email in protest. Have it written in all caps.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


So you post more meaningless clutter.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Now, dear. All of the above, on multiple occasions, in excruciating detail has been delineated for you. You make the same fallacious comments and sputter the same tired slogans.

It has become known as The Tinmore Vortex.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Like the false premise that the Mandate was a state.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.
> 
> He says that a successor state acquires the borders of the predecessor state. Of course this part is true. He says that the Mandate was the predecessor state and they left all of Palestine to the Jews as it was inside the Mandate's borders. Therefore all of Palestine is Israel. There are no occupied territories. Therefore there are no illegal settlements.
> 
> *His false premise is that the Mandate was a predecessor state*. It was not. It could not leave any territory to anyone because it had no territory to give. It had no authority over any territory.



Actually, he does not say that.  He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states.  The borders of those nation-states (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Homeland for the Jewish People (aka Palestine or Israel) were created with international frontiers from sovereign territory abandoned by the newly formed Turkey, by the Mandate Powers.  When each nation became independent, its borders -- the borders created by the Mandate Powers -- became the international borders for each nation-state.  The same treaties and instruments which brought about the borders in those other nation-states created the new international borders of Israel.  (And those borders were confirmed in the peace treaty with Jordan, btw).  

There is no treaty which breaks Israel into two parts. (At least not until Oslo.)  So there is no prohibition on Israeli citizens (and certainly not on Jewish peoples, as that would be contrary to IHL) living in ALL parts of the territory, nor on Israel building on ALL parts of the territory.  (At least until Oslo).  Nor, either on Arabs building on all parts of the territory.  (Again, til Oslo). 

There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo).  There never has been.  You know that.  You are one of the few who actually understand that and argue it constantly.  Surely you are not suddenly changing your stripes?


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


No. Your false premise that the "country" of Pal'istan (which existed only in your imagined musings) was inhabited some invented Pal'istanians who you similarly invented.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Kontorovich is an overpaid political hack. He bases his arguments on false premise.
> ...


There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​
I know and I have consistently stated it.

The never answered question is why every map of Israel uses those non existing borders.

BTW, those non existing borders also follow Palestine's international borders. Those are more non existing borders of Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


WOW, that is quite a feat. They actually look real.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Ya' Allah, dude. Not this silly International borders of (your invented) Pal'istan, again. 

You have been corrected on this multiple times in multiple threads.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​
> I know and I have consistently stated it.



So you agree with Professor Kontorovich, then.


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


They "look real"?

That's remarkable.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > There is no division or boundary, in law, between Israel and the "West Bank". (Except Oslo). There never has been. You know that.​
> ...


He is not wrong all of the time. He states that there are no "67 borders" and that resolution 181 was a non binding suggestion with no legal standing.

I agree with that. I have always said the same thing.

Edit:

The agreement by a Palestinian lawyer.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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










 You cant claim self defense when you are the aggressor firing illegal weapons deemed a war crime at your enemies children. Every incident between hamas and Israel is down to these illegal weapons and Israel responces. It is Israel that id defending its civilians not hams, they are using them as propaganda tools


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 The founders of hamas the muslim brotherhood, the plo and the arab league. Prior to 1947 it was islam as a whole that treated them as 4th class citizens where ever they were in the islamic world


----------



## Hollie (Sep 30, 2016)




----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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




Yeah, the Palestinian who says that Israel has no right to exist because it is not Arab and it is at the heart of the Arab world.  Racist much?

But, here we are, Prof. K, Ms. Deek, you and I all agree that the "settlements" can't not be illegal on the basis of there being two territories.  Its all one territory.  Until Oslo.


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









No you are just repeating islamonazi propaganda because you hate the Jews so much and so refuse to accept that they have as much right to the support of international laws as do the arab muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Sep 30, 2016)

Tehon said:


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








 Yes they do and it is part of the Oslo accords


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> New paper indicates that settlement activity is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
> 
> A new paper entitled "Unsettled: a Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territory" examines every single instance of settlements in occupied territory and finds in no case is it recognized as illegal -- except Israel -- even where the occupying governmental power actively recruits, encourages, builds, and finances the settlements and the migration of "desired" people to those settlements.
> 
> ...


The left love ethnic cleansing and demand it be practiced.


----------



## Shusha (Sep 30, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The left love ethnic cleansing and demand it be practiced.



Yep.  And, of course, no one is demanding that Western Sahara be ethnically cleansed.  Or East Timor.  Or any other of the eight similar legal situations in the world.  Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm.


----------



## RoccoR (Sep 30, 2016)

Tehon,  et al,

 This is a sticky two-part question.

Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state under International Law is a statement of its intent by Israel.   Recognition constitutes a unilateral decision by Israel of it's intent to conduct diplomatic exchanges on the basis that a body of leaders represent the constituents of a particular territory.  

•  It is entirely at the discretion of Israel to decide to recognize Palestine as a state. 
•  Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable once given.  Israel would be stipulating that the State pf Palestine is equal, enjoy the same rights as other States, and have equal capacity in their exercise.​Israel's recognition of Palestine as a state may be "express" _(explicitly stated)_ or "tacit" _(implied deeds or indicated actions)_.   The Oslo II Accord _(Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip)_ may be considered such a deed as to be tacit approval. 



Tehon said:


> Does Israel recognize Palestine as a State and how does that bear on the duties of Palestinians in regards to the law?


*(COMMENT)*

The citizenry of the State of Palestine  must formulate a government that is effective and independent both externally and internally; as an expression of state sovereignty.

If Palestine is recognized before all the preconditions for recognition are met _(premature recognition)_, this could be considered contrary to International Law and Legally Ineffective. If Israel were to prematurely recognizes Palestine [as in the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt)] as in Paragraph 1, A/RES/67/19]  could be interpreted as being in breach of the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state [Article2(4) 2 of the Charter of the United Nations].   See The recognition of states and governments under international law

A distinction is also drawn between _de jure_ and _de facto_ recognition. 

•  *de jure* Recognition:  If a state is accorded _de jure_ recognition, that means all the preconditions under international law for final and complete recognition have been fulfilled. 

•  _*de facto*_ Recognition:  this type of recognition has a comparatively less binding effect, because the legal relationship – though effectively in existence – is only provisional. Provisional _de facto_ recognition for political reasons can of course be converted to _de jure_ recognition once all the required legal preconditions have been fulfilled. ​
*(ANSWER)*

In my opinion _(for what it is worth)_ Israel has, without a formal statement, acted in a manner with the Palestinian Authority that suggests it has granted tacit provisional recognition.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Sep 30, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Tehon,  et al,
> 
> This is a sticky two-part question.
> 
> ...


Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states.



The Mandate system was merely a fig leaf for Britain and France to use so they could acquire and colonise the territory of the Ottoman Empire after they publicly declared they were not fighting the war (WW1) in order to expand their respective empires.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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










 And still you refuse to provide the evidence of this being so, at no time is the state of palestine mentioned in the treaty of Lausanne so that is your first LIE.
 The USA has not recognised palestine as a state until 1988 when it declared independence. The US court does not dictate official US policy and so cant declare a state where one has never existed.  This is your second LIE 

All you have is the word of an islamonazi propagandist and LIAR who has been proven to alter treaties, laws and official letters to say what he believes.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > He says that the territories under the Mandate were intended to become independent nation-states.
> ...








 So where are these alleged colonies to be found, I cant find any mention in any history books or on any maps. Care to produce the evidence of your fanciful neo marxist claims ?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine.  Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague. 


The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
*Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921,* to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine. ​
I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine."  Relative to the treaty, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic makes the unambiguous statement inequitably that:


*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.*​
The US Supreme Court case Zivotofsky v. Kerry:

Docket # 13-628 Case: 725 F. 3d 197,
Date of Decision: 8 June 2015
Petitioner: Juvenile
Respondent: Department or Secretary of State (DoS)​This case had very little to do with the case of citizenship, but the authority of the DoS to designate the status of the place of birth.  It was a both the validity and authority of the Executive Branch’s longstanding position that the United States does not recognize any country as having sovereignty over Jerusalem.  It was not a citizenship case; but a US Federal Recognition Case.



P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has been a state since the Treaty of Lausanne. Even the US recognized the state of Palestine in 1932 when it had a trade agreement with Palestine that was separate from the one it had with Britain. And later a US court case about Palestinian citizenship ruled Palestine to be a state.



*(COMMENT)*

What has evolved into the commercially designated "Arab Free Trade Area" (AFTA), which includes all 22 members of the Arab League, has only a half-century linage.  The chaotic geo-political behavior radically change to such a degree that by 1950 (mid-20th Century) the geo-political nature of the overall regional territory _(including Palestine and all the adjacent Arab States)_ looked nothing like the geo-political nature of the 1900 Region --- or --- the contemporary geo-political characteristics of the 21st Century.   

Relative to trade, commercial ventures and investments, industrial export production, and technological developments, the region we call Palestine today was _(in 50 year increments along a timeline)_ looked very different from the regional area in 1850, 1900, 1950 and even today.  And when looking a the maturity of the commercial development of the Region, the influence of an 1850 Ottoman area, to the a 1900 embryonic Republic, 1950s post Mandate Period and the 21st Century arena of conflict.  The al-Bekka Valley and half-the border with Israel dominated by Hezbollah, Syria in complete chaos in the geo-political sense, Jordan stable and Egypt becoming stable after the Arab Spring.  But what we call the State of Palestine is a self-proclaimed (self-determination) was only made possible in 1988.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## racialreality9 (Oct 1, 2016)

The whole country of Israel is illegal!

Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand.  The Arabs are going to wipe you out.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

racialreality9 said:


> The whole country of Israel is illegal!
> 
> Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand.  The Arabs are going to wipe you out.









 It is more legal than most of the islamonazi nations that surround it. Even the UN has agreed international laws to support the validity of Israel.

 We keep hearing this same claim from you islamonazi's ever since Israel was re-created, you have a 100,000,000 to 1 advantage in bodies by itself and still you cant beat Israel. You have invaded 6 times and been destroyed 6 times, you try to degrade the Israeli's moral with terrorist attacks and the Israeli's reply by demoralising your terrorists even before they have fired a shot. The world is getting tired of islamonazi threats and will one day turn and wipe out islam, then we might see peace for once


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine.  Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.
> 
> ...


I would very much be interested in seeing within the Treaty of Lausanne ANY reference to "State of Palestine" (or even just the word "Palestine."​
I hear Israeli propagandists say that all of the time. What they fail to mention is that Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Transjordan were not mentioned either. They imply that Palestine is an anomaly when it is the same as all of the other new states.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


So, we can agree that your "State of Pal'istan" claim is a fraud.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I would be very interested in seeing anything prior to 1988, that refers to the "State" of Palestine.  Most often cited to this alleged claim "state(hood)" as opposed to "Government of" is found Series "A", Page #7 - 1925 Judgement #5, Permanent Court of International Justice (His Britannic Majesty's Government, represented by R. V. Vernon Esq., C.B.. of the Colonial Office 'vs' The Government of the Greek Republic, represented by H.E. M. Kapsambelis, Greek Minister at The Hague.
> 
> ...


The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the
*Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921,* to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.​
I don't know why you brought this up. 

The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2016)

racialreality9 said:


> The whole country of Israel is illegal!
> 
> Once you are finished raping America, Jews, you know Israel won't stand.  The Arabs are going to wipe you out.


The lad needs a reminder to take his meds.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







They were mentioned in other treaties and mandates, but an islamonazi nation of palestine was not. The first thing the LoN did was to put in writting the terms of the Balfour declaration making it the basis of an international law. There is nothing of that magnitude for the nation of palestine. So where is this treaty that you say exists that no one else has seen ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 And that is all it means, nothing else. No mention of an arab muslim nation of palestine or of the islamonazi's getting everything after the LoN deliberately stated that the mandate of palestine would not be wholly arab muslim of Jewish, which is why they split it in two.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is another diversion from the core.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The Government of the Greek Republic, by an application filed with the Registry of the Court on May 13th, 1924, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of the Rules of Court, has submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit arising out of the alleged refusal on the part of the *Government of Palestine and consequently also on the part of His Britannic Majesty's Government, in its capacity as Mandatory Power for Palestine, since the year 1921,* to recognize to their full extent the rights acquired by M. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under contracts and agreements concluded by him with the Ottoman authorities, in regard to concessions for certain public works to certain constructed in Palestine.
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

I brought this up to demonstrate the the International Court, even after the Treaty of Laussanne, Government of Palestinian as the Mandatory were related, as is the successor Government as defined by the Palestine Order in Council.



P F Tinmore said:


> The court found that Palestine was a successor state and was responsible to honor that contract. Britain, with its Mandate, was the trustee for Palestine and was ultimately responsible.



*(COMMENT*)

The Court described the Government of Palestine exactly as I state _(cut'n'paste)_ needing no interpretation.  Twice in the ruling, the Court talks about "successor states" but in in a broad sense.  Your statement (Palestine was a successor state) is true, but only in the sense that "Palestine" -- was the Government of Palestine --- the "Mandatory _(the territory to which the mandate applied)_"

Again, you are trying to confuse the issue.  The Mandatory, the Government of Palestinian. and HM's Government as the Mandatory Power, where all, in fact all the same entity, and just acting in marginally different capacities.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is another diversion from the core.
> 
> ...


Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?

That is an Israeli talking point.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The truth is what it is.



P F Tinmore said:


> Are you going back to "the mandate was Palestine" shit again?
> 
> That is an Israeli talking point.


*(OBSERVATION)*





Whereas, by Treaty, Capitulation, Grant, Usage, Sufferance and other lawful means.

You don't read very well.  The territory to which the Mandate (for Palestine) applied was described as "Palestine."  Palestine does not make the title, the Order in Council (for Palestine) sets the definition for the title. 

The Order in Council is specific.  No interpretation required.  This is a matter of record, and not some artificial dispute invented by post-Mandate period Hostile Arab Palestinians to give them some justification for the jihad, insurgency, terrorism, resistance, rebels and other asymmetric actions. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Oct 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The truth is what it is.
> 
> ...


 Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.

You view the entire conflict through this lens.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Actually, it seems your basic premise rests on a need and desire to re-write history going forward from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Your compulsive fascination with this mythical Pal'isan you have invented tends to cause you some real difficulties with regard to the history of the area.

That said, one of the profound difficulties _reality averse_ people have with contingent history in general and particularly, contingent history that conflicts with the imagined version of the history they prefer to have occurred is that the historical events are more complex than your simplistic “... because I say so", proclamations. The historical record does not consist of appeals to imagined Arab-Moslem paradises as you envision them. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to those who dwell in your imagined environs that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 NO IT IS A FACT THAT YOU CANT HANDLE BECAUSE IT DESTROYS YOUR POV

Once again you confuse yourself by mixing up the mandate and the mandatory, Britain was not the mandate it was the mandatory. The mandate was a legal treaty that was but one of many similar treaties dissolving the German and its allies colonies. Why is it everything you dont like because it harms your POV is an Israeli talking point, yet cant understand that everything you post is just islamonazi propaganda without any basis of truth.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 And yours is that every law has to be used retrospectively against the Jews until such a time as they are eradicated from the world. STOP TRYING TO REMOVE THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWS BECAUSE OF YOUR PETTY HATE AND START LOOKING AT THE CRIMINALITY OF THE ARAB MUSLIMS ATTEMPTING TO STEAL LAND.

At the time of writing these were the inalienable rights of the people involved and it is about time you realised these facts


----------



## Shusha (Oct 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.
> 
> You view the entire conflict through this lens.



Your basic premise is that everyone has inalienable rights except the Jewish people.


----------



## racialreality9 (Oct 5, 2016)

I would say the Jewish people have, in fact, forfeited their rights, because they don't want Americans to have rights.

How can you support immigration for America but not for Israel?  The height of hypocrisy.  But can you get away with it, because everybody wants to move to America which was built by white people, and nobody wants to move to Israel which was "built" I mean stolen, by Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 5, 2016)

racialreality9 said:


> I would say the Jewish people have, in fact, forfeited their rights, because they don't want Americans to have rights.
> 
> How can you support immigration for America but not for Israel?  The height of hypocrisy.  But can you get away with it, because everybody wants to move to America which was built by white people, and nobody wants to move to Israel which was "built" I mean stolen, by Jews.








 Go away and read a proper history book, and not one passed out at the secret meeting of the neonazi propagandists.


----------



## Challenger (Oct 5, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Your basic premise is that power politics trump inalienable rights.
> ...


Does an invading religious group have "inalienable rights" over and above the indigenous native population?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


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


When does anyone define Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters and land grabbers as an "indigenous population"?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


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








 The only invading religious group was the arab muslims who started to invade from 1917 and then went all out in a war of annihilation in 1947.

 The Jews that migrated legally were the same people as the indigenous population as proven by genetic tests. So do explain what inalienable rights the invading arab muslim illegal immigrants have to any of the lands granted to the Jews under international treaty in 1923 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Oct 5, 2016)

Hollie said:


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







 When they are paid neo marxists stooges or paid islamonazi propagandists, anyone else would look at the facts and declare the arab muslims to be removed from the area as illegal immigrants


----------



## Shusha (Oct 5, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Does an invading religious group have "inalienable rights" over and above the indigenous native population?



I know you are attempting to argue that the Jewish people are the invaders and the Arab Muslims are the indigenous native population.  It is a ridiculous reversal of the reality.  The Jewish people and the Jewish culture clearly originated and developed in that place prior to the invasion of successive waves of people from other places.  That is the definition of indigenous -- that the people of that culture existed in that place prior to invasions, colonization and settlement by another culture or religious group. 

But, oddly enough, for the sake of the Palestinian people, I would have to answer "yes" to your question.  Even though the Arab Muslim culture is NOT the indigenous culture and it can be proven historically that it was an invading religion and culture -- I DO think the Palestinian people have inherent and inalienable rights to self-determination on a part of that territory. 

No one has rights "over and above" another group.  Each group has the same rights and each group's rights are equally inalienable.  But its not a zero sum game.

And indigeniety is not the only factor that should be considered.  We must also consider factors such as:  facts on the ground (or "you can't unbreak this egg") and whether or not self-determination and self-government is actually possible for the group in question.


----------

