# Who is Israeli colonel Yusi Oulen Shahak in Golani Brigade with security code Re34356578765az2314?



## Billo_Really (Oct 23, 2015)

He's a member of the IDF, captured in Iraq, while leading ISIL terrorists against the state.

_"Israeli agents from Mossad and other Israeli espionage and intelligence bodies were present in the first wave of ISIL attacks on Iraq and capture of Mosul in Summer 2014"_​
Let's hope they treat him with dignity and respect during his interrogations?

On the other hand, just for fun, why don't they let Iraqi "settlers" interrogate him?


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 23, 2015)

This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 24, 2015)

Billo_Really, et al,

Nonsense!!!!  Proves nothing of the sort.

Reference:  *Yusi Oulen Shahak*


Billo_Really said:


> This story proves the Israeli's are more terrorists than the Palestinian's.


*(COMMENT)*

A sample of one, is not statistically valid to draw this conclusion.

*•  Active personnel:*    176,500
*•  Reserve personnel:* 445,000​
If you wanted to get a significantly valid sample, for the ≈ 176K Active Duty members, you would need to sample about 400 members, to get a "Confidence Level" of 95%, with a "Confident Interval" of +/- 5.

Sampling just 1 would give you a 50-50 (toss a coin) chance at a 95% "Confidence Level" with a "Confidence Interval of ≈ +/- 100.

Garbage in gets you garbage out.  

All the discovery of this one anomaly tells you is that the law of probability is working.  We simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusion.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Oct 24, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really, et al,
> 
> Nonsense!!!!  Proves nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...


Then how come you don't apply that same equation to the Palestinian's?


----------



## RoccoR (Oct 24, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

Yes, a very fair question.


“In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” _(Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4,  “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”)_. This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.​
Sometimes, the prediction of future events requires analysis from a different perspective --- other than statistical.



Billo_Really said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Knowing how to define criminal behavior, and how genetics and the environment influence the behavior, is the first step to understanding.

The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny.  In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Nov 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really, et al,
> 
> Nonsense!!!!  Proves nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...



Reduce that number just to Sayet Matkal or other IDF Special Ops units, and the sample becomes much more valid, reduce it further for officers of Colonel rank and above and it becomes significant, especially as he is one of "a number" of IDF officers apparently seen working with ISIL, if nothing else, he is a "smoking gun" where evidence if IDF support for ISIL is involved.


----------



## Challenger (Nov 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  et al,
> 
> Yes, a very fair question.
> 
> ...





RoccoR said:


> “In study after study, the variable that emerges as the strongest predictor of future criminal behavior is past criminal and delinquent behavior” _(Wright, J.P., Chapter 2. Page 4, “The Stability of Criminal Behavior.”)_. This axiom is rooted in the behavioral concepts of stability and continuity.



"The Arab Palestinians have an extensive record of past criminal behaviors and avail themselves intensive scrutiny.  In this case, the evaluation and study of the past history of criminal behaviors over time, is probably the better choice of analysis." Really? People in glass houses....

YIVO | Crime and Criminals
Jewish-American organized crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 3, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  et al,
> 
> Yes, a very fair question.
> 
> ...


Not as extensive as this one!


_1955-1992__:
# * Resolution 106: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid”.

# * Resolution 111: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people”.

# * Resolution 127: ” . . . ‘recommends’ Israel suspends it’s ‘no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 162: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to comply with UN decisions”.

# * Resolution 171: ” . . . determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria”.

# * Resolution 228: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control”.

# * Resolution 237: ” . . . ‘urges’ Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees”.

# * Resolution 248: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 250: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 251: ” . . . ‘deeply deplores’ Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250″.

# * Resolution 252: ” . . . ‘declares invalid’ Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital”.

# * Resolution 256: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli raids on Jordan as ‘flagrant violation”.

# * Resolution 259: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation”.

# * Resolution 262: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for attack on Beirut airport”.

# * Resolution 265: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan”.

# * Resolution 267: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem”.

# *Resolution 270: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 271: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 279: ” . . . ‘demands’ withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 280: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 285: ” . . . ‘demands’ immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 298: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem”.

# * Resolution 313: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 316: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 317: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 332: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 337: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

# * Resolution 347: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israeli attacks on Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 425: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 427: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

# * Resolution 444: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces”.

# * Resolution 446: ” . . . ‘determines’ that Israeli settlements are a ‘serious obstruction’ to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 450: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 452: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories”.

# * Resolution 465: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel’s settlements program”.

# * Resolution 467: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 468: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return”.

# * Resolution 469: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians”.

# * Resolution 471: ” . . . ‘expresses deep concern’ at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention”.

# * Resolution 476: ” . . . ‘reiterates’ that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are ‘null and void’”.

# * Resolution 478: ” . . . ‘censures (Israel) in the strongest terms’ for its claim to Jerusalem in its ‘Basic Law’”.

# * Resolution 484: ” . . . ‘declares it imperative’ that Israel re-admit two deported# Palestinian mayors”.

# * Resolution 487: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility”.

# * Resolution 497: ” . . . ‘decides’ that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is ‘null and void’ and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith”.

# * Resolution 498: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 501: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops”.

# * Resolution 509: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 515: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in”.

# * Resolution 517: ” . . . ‘censures’ Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 518: ” . . . ‘demands’ that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon”.

# * Resolution 520: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel’s attack into West Beirut”.

# * Resolution 573: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel ‘vigorously’ for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

# * Resolution 587: ” . . . ‘takes note’ of previous calls on Israel to withdraw# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw”.

# * Resolution 592: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops”.

# * Resolution 605: ” . . . ‘strongly deplores’ Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 607: ” . . . ‘calls’ on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

# * Resolution 608: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians”.

# * Resolution 636: ” . . . ‘deeply regrets’ Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

# * Resolution 641: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 672: ” . . . ‘condemns’ Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

# * Resolution 673: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United# Nations.

# * Resolution 681: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 694: ” . . . ‘deplores’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

# * Resolution 726: ” . . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of Palestinians.

# * Resolution 799: “. . . ‘strongly condemns’ Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return_​Israel kills at will , attacks its neighbors, then expects people to believe they're the victims?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 3, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

What is the individual or collective impact of these non-binding resolutions; other than a waste of paper?  They condemn, deplore, urge and regret (occasionally demand something) --- but cannot actually cause an action of enforcement.



Billo_Really said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Is there a chance that buried in here is a binding resolution?  I do not believe that even one of these resolutions pertains to an action that was investigated or properly litigated in accordance with the dispute resolution process.

Israel does not "kill at will" in the sense that  ---  the use of force was not in response to a first use of force by the aggressive Arab Palestinians.  You will find that in nearly every case -- something the Arab Palestinians did precipitated the deadly response from the Israelis.  It may be a terrorist bombing, rocket fire, border incursion, or kidnapping and murder, or an ambush.  But in nearly every case, the Arab Palestinian initiated the hostile contact first.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Nov 4, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Billo_Really,  et al,
> 
> What is the individual or collective impact of these non-binding resolutions; other than a waste of paper?  They condemn, deplore, urge and regret (occasionally demand something) --- but cannot actually cause an action of enforcement.
> 
> ...



G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 4, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

I understand completely.  A General Assembly Resolution that reaffirms existing law has no legally binding effect.  It is the same as me reaffirming existing law.  What has the effect, is the existing law, not the redundant Resolution.

 General Assembly resolutions are non-binding; as indicated by Chapter IV, Articles 10 and Article 14,  UN Charter refer to General Assembly as "recommendations"; the recommendatory nature of General Assembly resolutions has repeatedly been stressed by theInternational Court of Justice.[2]




Challenger said:


> G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.


*(COMMENT)*

You will notice that "some passages" within a Security Council Resolutions start with the work "_Decides_."  Under Chapter V, Article 25 of the UN Charter:


*Article 25*
The Members of the United Nations *agree to accept and carry out the decisions* of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.​
As an example, the very first Resolution you listed was UN Security Council Resolution 106, adopted after hearing reports from the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in Palestine and representatives of Egypt and Israel the Council.   The UNTSO noted that the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission (MAC) made a determination that the attack of 28 February 1955 was a "prearranged and planned attack ordered by Israel authorities."  The UNSC:

Condemned this attack as a violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 54, 
Called upon Israel to take all necessary measures to prevent such action, 
Expressed its conviction that the maintenance of the General Armistice Agreement was threatened by deliberate violations. 
BUT it does not actually "bind" Israel to a specific action.  It is ambiguous.  It merely puts Israel on notice that United Nations Security Council Resolution 54 (1948), is still applicable.  It uses language such as:

Determines
Orders
Declares
Instructs 
Decides
This is very different language from that of a normal General Assembly Resolution.  And you will also notice that in the case of UNSC Resolution 106, it does not actually do anything but recognize the violation as noted by the MAC.  

This is very much like the UN making notes that the Russian Federation took the Crimea; or that Peoples' Republic of China took Tibet.  Even in cases where there are clear violations, there is no enforcement (exceptions to the rule). 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 4, 2015)

Challenger said:


> G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.


One would think if you choose to be a member of a certain organization, you would honor the rules of said organization?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 4, 2015)

Billo_Really,  et al,

That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.



Billo_Really said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > G.A. resolutions, when they reaffirm existing international law or S.C. resolutions are just as binding on U.N. member states as S.C. resolutions, although yes, G.A. resolutions are non binding on their own; you should know this.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule.  Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture _(taken under their own best interest)_ to the member.

Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Nov 5, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Even in cases where there are clear violations, there is no enforcement (exceptions to the rule).





RoccoR said:


> Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.



Exactly. Zionist Israel is able to act with complete impunity because the U.N. was created without any means of independant enforcement and given that the U.S. is Zionist Israel's de facto "bitch" in the U.N. 

An Updated List of Vetoes Cast by the United States to Shield Israel from Criticism by the U.N. Security Council

U.S. Vetoes of UN Security Council Resolutions Critical to Israel | Jewish Virtual Library

the organisation is poweless to fulfill the function it was originally set up for, much like the earlier League of Nations.  However, the General Assembly can still pass resolutions that reflect the rest of the world's disgust at Zionist Israeli policies and activities vis-a-vis the Palestinians. It is no accident that the USA and Zionist Israel have pulled out of the Rome Statute/I.C.C.

This is one reason I rarely get involved with "international law" discussions, they are generally pointless exercises until and unless the USA changes its stance.

US raises prospect of Israel UN isolation - BBC News


----------



## Billo_Really (Nov 5, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.
> 
> Seldom, if ever, are political memberships acquired with the intent to follow every rule.  Political memberships or affiliations are a utilitarian venture _(taken under their own best interest)_ to the member.


 These rules were created (in part) to prevent another Holocaust.  Rules you choose to eschew.  Furthermore, these aren't just "political" rules you can throw around and debate like a new bill for your district, these are rules designed to give the "mechanism" for countries to settle their differences peacefully. 

Being against these "rules", is being against peace itself, as is shown by the nature of the Resolutions against Israel.

_"...condemns’ Israel for Gaza raid..."

"...condemns’ Israel for raid on Syria..."  

"...determines flagrant violations’ by Israel in its attack on Syria..." 

"...condemns’ Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan..."_​
The nature of these "rules violations", is just horrifying!  Yet, you call, _'thinking Israel would honor rules to keep the peace'_, naïve?

I call you disgusting.




RoccoR said:


> Members selectively act in the best interest of their respective nation.


That's what Nazi Germany did.


----------



## Challenger (Nov 5, 2015)

Billo_Really said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > That would be a terribly naive assumption to make.
> ...



Interesting point when you consider that the League of Nations prevented another global war and provided a pressure release mechanism right up to the point where certain countries' "interests" trumped adhereance to "international law" and League condemnations, making the LoN effectively redundant. If you look around now, the same is happening to the U.N., countries and groups, "inspired" by U.S. and Zionist Israeli example, are ignoring the U.N. in favour of their own "interests". I suspect it won't be long before we have another global war. Watch this space...


----------



## Quadravius (Nov 10, 2015)

That makes perfect sense if you think about the current situation in the middle east.  As the saying goes, an enemy of my enemy is my friend.  As long as ISIS is attacking Assad's forces, then they're seen as an ally of Israel.  If anything, that shows just how low the Israelis are willing to go.  Between human rights violations, war crimes, and now teaming up with evil forces working to destabilize the region.  Its safe to say at this point, the Israelis don't have any problem being the villains.  Israel is one of the most racist places on Earth, and it would suit me just fine to see it smashed.  Its at least as racist as apartheid South Africa was.  Anyone who has a skin color differing from white is suspect to unreasonable search, or detainmentIts less than they deserve for their crimes.  Playing the whole victim card from the holocaust in WW2 only goes as far as the point where they decide to go from being victims of nazis to starting to act like them.  

Its refreshing to see that not everyone here has their nose planted up Israel's ass.  But that's an exclusively republican thing.  They gotta protect the master race overseas.......


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 10, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

You say this, and suggest that the inspiration "by U.S. and Zionist Israel" are the only examples of countries that work in their own best interest (self-interest)!   This is hardly the case.

The UN is an example of a Pluralistic system of governments that have different nations that keep their identities while existing within larger blocks of nations with commonality and can be associated with a more dominant group.  They do this to achieve a position that will maximize their political and diplomatic influence.

Other examples of cooperative arrangements between political parties intended to promote a mutual self-interest are: 

The Cartels:  Diamond or Oil --- Commodity Interests
NATO --- Intergovernmental Military Alliances
The Arab League --- Regional Organization
The G-8 Highly Industrialized Nations
Many Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which FIRST are concerned with their own security --- THEN act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for influence.



Challenger said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The US does have a certain amount of influence; but nothing on the order that you suggest.  And there are other nations and entities that ignore the UN and IHL (PLO/Palestine as an example) that were not inspired by the US or Israel.

The 1948 occupation and subsequent 1950 Annexation of the West Bank by the Hashemite Kingdom, extended the influence of Jordan within the region.

The 1950 annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China (PRC) established total PRC sovereignty but granted Tibet a certain measure of autonomy.  

The 1955 The Warsaw Pact was a Russian military response to the introduction of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, motivated by the Soviet desires to maintain control over military forces (self-interest) in Central and Eastern Europe.  NATO and the Warsaw Pact are not limited by the constraints of the UN.  They are separate treaties made in the bast interests of their membership.
More Recently:

The 2014/2015 NPT Negotiations with Iran, where Iran acted in its best interest.

The 2014 Russian Federation annexation of the Crimea from the Ukraine assures Russian influence in the Black Sea Region.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Nov 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> You say this, and suggest that the inspiration "by U.S. and Zionist Israel" are the only examples of countries that work in their own best interest (self-interest)!   This is hardly the case.
> 
> ...



Do tell, how many times was the U.S.A. condemned by the U.N. for following it's own interests and breaking international laws between 1945 and 1991?


----------



## depotoo (Nov 10, 2015)

We have no obligation to follow international law.  We are a sovereign nation.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 10, 2015)

Challenger,  et al,

The US gets in trouble with the UN all the time.  Much like the Russians or the Chinese, --- weeee just don't care.



Challenger said:


> Do tell, how many times was the U.S.A. condemned by the U.N. for following it's own interests and breaking international laws between 1945 and 1991?


*(COMMENT)*

Oh, I don't know how many times in the last 70 years.

In the last couple years, the UN condemned the US several times (at least).

Voice of America  November 28, 2014 
GENEVA—The U.N. Committee Against Torture has condemned reported police brutality and excessive use of force in the United States, especially against minority groups.

PBS NewsHour _August 29, 2014 _
WASHINGTON --- UN Committee condemns U.S. for racial disparity, police brutality

MSNBC --- UN watchdog condemns US for human rights failures  03/14/14 
A United States delegation to the U.N. faced blistering criticism from an international committee in Geneva over a slew of human rights concerns on Friday, including stand your ground laws, the death penalty, voting rights and racial disparities in education.

Reuters RT Questions More 10 Mar, 2015 
US condemned by UN torture expert for children given life in prison without parole
United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, singled out the US for its lonely perch as the world’s leading jailer of society’s most voiceless and exposed.

UN: US embargo on Cuba condemned by UN 191-2
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) approved a resolution condemning the US blockade of Cuba, with only the US and Israel voting against it, in New York, Tuesday.

UN condemns US drone strikes in Pakistan  16.03.2013
The United Nations has condemned US drone strikes in Pakistan, saying that they violate Islamabad’s sovereignty. Washington’s response to the UN condemnation was muted.​
Our condemnations are usually something considerably more than the constant and incessant whining and crying by the Arab-Palestinians who make it a point to start trouble and complain when they get slapped.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Nov 11, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> The US gets in trouble with the UN all the time.  Much like the Russians or the Chinese, --- weeee just don't care.
> 
> ...



Well that's an answer to some question, but not the one I asked. The U.S. effectively created and was the main driving force behind the U.N. and still provides 22% of the orgaisation's funding, little influence? Okay, if you say so...


----------



## Quadravius (Nov 16, 2015)

depotoo said:


> We have no obligation to follow international law.  We are a sovereign nation.



If exterminating Palestinians like they aren't even humans is your nation's prerogative, who is anyone else to question it?  Am I right?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 16, 2015)

depotoo, Quadravius, et al,

This is a very controversial and political sensitive issue.

The center of the controversy is based upon the Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) Law Communities, and selected member nations, allowing and shielding the Arab Palestinians in their effort to pursue Jihad and acts committed as part of a widespread and systematic attacks directed against the Israeli civilian population; and setting the conditions such that the Arab Palestinian is protected from a combat engagement that would represent a decisive victory and resolve the seven decade old war that is promoted by the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) Community.



Quadravius said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > We have no obligation to follow international law.  We are a sovereign nation.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) Law have been a major contributing factors the continuation and prolonging of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Any Pro-Arab Palestinian will tell you that it is their right to use any and all means to attack Israeli civilians and civil objects; without regard to Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) Law.  However, the reciprocal arrangement is not the same in its application towards Israel.  By definition this is unequal under the law.  And it demonstrates a complicity between the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights (HR) Community with the Arab-Palestinians to circumvent the IHL in favor or the Arab Palestinians; accomplices in the establishment of a widespread and systematic attacks directed against the Israeli civilian population.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## depotoo (Nov 16, 2015)

And I agree, Israel is held to standards in which the Palestinians are not, thus why the conflict continues.  If they are attacked, they are expected to not respond. It is outrageous.





RoccoR said:


> depotoo, Quadravius, et al,
> 
> This is a very controversial and political sensitive issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 17, 2015)

Quadravius said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > We have no obligation to follow international law.  We are a sovereign nation.
> ...



"Palestinians"    got exterminated?    when?       last nite?


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 18, 2015)

Quadravius,  irosie91,  et al,

Our friend "irosie91" has a good question...



irosie91 said:


> Quadravius said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I do not believe that the Jewish State of Israel is engaged in any form of "extermination" --- "ethnic cleansing" --- or --- "genocide."  There is a steady growth in the population of Palestine.  I see no indication of such a program.



 

As you can see from the time index stamp, this data was pulled within minutes of each other.  As you can see, the death rate in Israel is twice that of Palestine.  If there is some widespread or systematic program directed against Palestinian population, with intent, in whole or in part, "exterminate" the Palestinians --- it is a complete failure, and may be acting in reverse.

*Palestinian Authority population 2015*​
During 2015 Palestinian Authority population is projected to increased by 116 097 people and reach 4 704 904 in the beginning of 2016. The natural increase is expected to be positive, as the number of births will exceed the number of deaths by 116 097. Because of the lack of official information related to external migration we do not include it to our estimation. Most probably the difference between immigrants and emigrants is not significant and is close to zero. That means the population of Palestinian Authority is changing mainly due the natural reasons only (births and deaths).

*Population dynamics in 2015*
According to our estimations, daily change rates of Palestinian Authority population in 2015 will be the following:


362 live births average per day (15.07 in a hour)
44 deaths average per day (1.82 in a hour)
0 people due to external migration (0.00 in a hour)
*The population of Palestinian Authority will be increased by 318 persons daily in 2015.
*​Most Respectfully,
R


----------

