# Call Apartheid in Israel by Its Name



## montelatici (Feb 11, 2016)

Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL



*Apartheid South Africa                                                    Israel*

The non-white citizens                                                         The non-Jew citizens
The white citizens                                                                The the Jewish citizens
The non-whites of the Bantustans                                       The non-Jews of the Occupied Territories

"Citizenship here is reminiscent of South Africa's in the past: Jews are 'white' citizens, Arabs in Israel have 'colored' (in other words, partial) citizenship; and Palestinians in the territories have 'black' citizenship, without political rights.

In international law, a situation whereby a country appropriates and settles territories outside its sovereign borders is called colonialism. Southern Lebanon was an example of military occupation; the West Bank is an example of colonialism, one that seeks to entrench itself over time while preserving the privileges of the ruling population, and incidentally creating an apartheid regime.
read more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion


read more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Feb 11, 2016)

Every country has among its citizens those who are disconnected from the harsher realities of human existence.  For example, the United States is currently loaded with them.

We call them Democrats.


----------



## Davey T (Feb 11, 2016)

Israel was created by the international governments that liberals and other racists are supposed to love.  Israel was legally created by lawyers for Jews who have lived in the area for 1000s of years and suffered .  There is no other country in the world, besides the US, that Arabs have better lives.  The ones that want to live in peace, do so, and are even part of the governing Knesset.  The ones that could not live around Jews for racist reasons, left and are now called Palestinians.  If you think we should give the land back (to whom, who knows) then we should give California back to Mexico, Germany back to the Saxons and France back to the Gauls.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 11, 2016)

Davey T said:


> Israel was created by the international governments that liberals and other racists are supposed to love.  Israel was legally created by lawyers for Jews who have lived in the area for 1000s of years and suffered .  There is no other country in the world, besides the US, that Arabs have better lives.  The ones that want to live in peace, do so, and are even part of the governing Knesset.  The ones that could not live around Jews for racist reasons, left and are now called Palestinians.  If you think we should give the land back (to whom, who knows) then we should give California back to Mexico, Germany back to the Saxons and France back to the Gauls.



How could the Zionists that colonized Palestine have lived in the area for thousands of years?  They and their ancestors were Europeans.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Israel was created by the international governments that liberals and other racists are supposed to love.  Israel was legally created by lawyers for Jews who have lived in the area for 1000s of years and suffered .  There is no other country in the world, besides the US, that Arabs have better lives.  The ones that want to live in peace, do so, and are even part of the governing Knesset.  The ones that could not live around Jews for racist reasons, left and are now called Palestinians.  If you think we should give the land back (to whom, who knows) then we should give California back to Mexico, Germany back to the Saxons and France back to the Gauls.
> ...


Jews were encouraged to move to Israel. Not so with the Moslem invaders/squatters.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 12, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Davey T said:
> 
> 
> > Israel was created by the international governments that liberals and other racists are supposed to love.  Israel was legally created by lawyers for Jews who have lived in the area for 1000s of years and suffered .  There is no other country in the world, besides the US, that Arabs have better lives.  The ones that want to live in peace, do so, and are even part of the governing Knesset.  The ones that could not live around Jews for racist reasons, left and are now called Palestinians.  If you think we should give the land back (to whom, who knows) then we should give California back to Mexico, Germany back to the Saxons and France back to the Gauls.
> ...








 By the same way that the islamonazi's lived in the area for thousands of years of course. They and their ancestors were from the arabian peninsular and were arabs.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 13, 2016)

I'd call it BS because as we all know there is no apartheid state in Israel other than the Arab Muslim enclaves where Jews are not allowed.


----------



## MJB12741 (Feb 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I'd call it BS because as we all know there is no apartheid state in Israel other than the Arab Muslim enclaves where Jews are not allowed.



Gosh i wonder how many Chrisitian & Jewish citizens there are in the non aparthied Arab countries with equal votong rights in the government like Palestinian citizens have living in Israel?


----------



## Lipush (Feb 14, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There is no difference between Jew and Non-Jew in Israel.

Again, pro-Palestinians and their lies.


----------



## Indeependent (Feb 14, 2016)

Haaretz has been calling for the downfall of Israel since 1948.


----------



## Lipush (Feb 14, 2016)

True


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 20, 2016)

*Nada Elia: Confronting Apartheid*
**


----------



## Hollie (Feb 20, 2016)

Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid vs Israel democracy :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes

Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid are the largest 'apartheid systems', that exist today.

Virtually all non-Arabs and/or non-Muslims are second class citizens. Among minorities that feel the wrath of the bigoted Arab-Muslim world are:

* Berbers (native N. Africans, before Arab invasion: Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco).

* Copts (indigenous Egyptians suffer from both: Arab racism and Islamic bigotry).

* Kurds (Examples include: [Saddam's] Iraq and Syria.

* Blacks, in Arab lands or in Arab ruled Africa like the genocide in the Sudan and slavery in both Sudan and in Mauritania.

* Asians, particularly in the Gulf Arab states. [Sex slaves or "plain" slaves).

* Maronites-Christians [Native Lebanese] suffer from both Arab ethnic racism and religious bigotry, like the massacres in the 1970s by local Muslims and by Palestinian/Syrian forces.

* Assyrians, are/have been persecuted both racially and religiously. Still very much marginalized in Iraq, for example.

* Iran is not an Arab country but racism is huge against Kurds, Jews, Turkmens, etc. So is anti-non-Muslim bigotry against Christians, Bahai, Zoroastrians and other in the Islamic republic.

* Turkey is also a Muslim non-Arab country and Kurds, Greeks, Armenians and other ethnicities have been through much suffering, genocide. Still there's great wide racism against non-Turkish ethnic groups including racism against Alevis and against Kurds. Turkey's policy in Cyprus has also been recognized as a real Apartheid by many. All non-Muslims are automatically branded as "foreigners" at the "moderate" Islamic supremacy of Turkey.

* Chinese, Indians, Christians and other non-Malay, in Malaysia; Chinese, Christians in Indonesia, have long been subject to persecution, race-riots, discrimination, racism and bloodshed.

* Non-Muslims or the 'wrong kind of Muslims,' in Pakistan; Iraq; Afghanistan, are oppressed and targeted in deadly attacks.

* All non-Msulims in 'Islamic Apartheid state' of S. Arabia.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 20, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid vs Israel democracy :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes
> 
> Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid are the largest 'apartheid systems', that exist today.
> 
> ...


Nice deflection.


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid vs Israel democracy :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes
> ...


You're just offended to be called out for defending the bigotry, fascism and apartheid societies that define arab'ism/Islamism.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


None of that in Palestine, huh?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


All of that in The Islamic terrorist enclave of Pal'istan and reflected across the Islamist Middle East.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 21, 2016)

montelatici,  et al,

This is nonsense.



montelatici said:


> Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL
> 
> *Apartheid South Africa                                                    Israel*
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is no geo-political relationship between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine.  They are two separate countries separated by internationally recognized demarcation.  The demarcation is recognized and protected the same as a border.

•  *Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States * in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations:  Every State likewise has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect. Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as prejudicing the positions of the parties concerned with regard to the status and effects of such lines under their special regimes or as affecting their temporary character.​
POINTS RELATIVE TO APARTHIED:

•  There are both Jewish Constituents and non-Jewish Constituents on both sides of the International Boundaries separating Israel from Jordan and Egypt.  AND there are both Jewish Constituents and non-Jewish Constituents on both sides of the other demarcation lines.  Admittedly, the distribution of Jewish Constituents in the adjacent Arab nations is relatively small.  In the Gaza Strip the Arab Palestinian is ≈ 97% to 98% of the population; most of whom are Sunni Muslim (nearly 99%).  Less than 1% of the Gaza Population is Christian.  In the West Bank population is a bit more diverse, with the Arab Palestinian comprising ≈ 80% to 85%, and all others comprising 15% to 20%.  However, the ethnic demographics of Israel is a bit more complicated:





Interesting Side Note is that in the 2009 survey, ≈ 20% of the Israeli Population did not believe in the existence of a Supreme Being.  In the 2011 Census, Israel consisted of 75.4% Jewish, -- 17.3% Muslim,  2% Christians, and 1.6% Druze.  The remaining 3.7% were undefined as others.

By comparing the objective ethnic and cultural dimensions of both the Palestinian Territories to that of Israel, you will find that there is Israel the much more diverse culture.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> ...


use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
The armistice line specified that Jordanian and Israeli forces cannot cross.

Where do Palestinians fit in here?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Pal'istanian terrorists fit right in that spot that allows them to commit acts of Islamic terrorism across those armistice lines.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> ...


There is only one government in all of Palestine and that is Israel.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



What about your heroes, Hamas, in Gaza?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


The armistice line passes through Palestine. Palestinians were and are living on both sides. What side of the line are Palestinians not allowed to be on?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If you look at the agreed upon international boundaries, there was no independently recognized State of Palestine to be considered.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > •  use of force to violate international lines of demarcation, such as armistice lines, established by or pursuant to an international agreement to which it is a party or which it is otherwise bound to respect.​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, that is interesting.  The Arab Palestinians, not being a state or recognized government, were not a party to a conflict and did not have a sovereign territory at stake.  You will notice that in Article 3 - International Boundary, of the Treaty of Peace 1994, and Annex I (a) Jordan-Israel International Boundary Delimitation And Demarcation, were as:  "The boundary Line shall follow the middle of the main course of the flow of the Jordan and Yarmouk Rivers." as an example.   While it is assumed that the Treaty is made without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians, no separate Treaties have ever been established between Israel and the Palestinians.  At the time of the 1967 Six Day War, the West Bank was sovereign Jordanian Territory.  In 1988, Jordan took independent and unilateral action when it abandon (_terra nullius_ means "land belonging to nobody.") the West Bank.  Israel had sole effective control on 1 August, 1988 when the Jordanian Government "disengaged from the West Bank."  (" Finally, on July 31 King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank.')

At that time, no other country either demanded or maintained effective control of the West Bank.  The idea that the West Bank or the Gaza Strip were "taken from the Arab Palestinians" is 100% erroneous.  The Israeli's occupied that land for 20 years + before the Arab Palestinians attempted "self-determination in creating a near failed state _(a political entity that has deteriorated to the point where basic responsibilities of a sovereign government are no longer functioning properly)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> If you look at the agreed upon international boundaries, there was no independently recognized State of Palestine to be considered.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is interesting. The Arab Palestinians, not being a state or recognized government, were not a party to a conflict and did not have a sovereign territory at stake.​
Note: Palestine did have a government during the armistice agreements but it was not a party to the 1948 war.

3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;\

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​
Where do you get that the Palestinians have no territory?

Link?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



The Link is Common Sense.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You push this claim quite often.



P F Tinmore said:


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


_*(COMMENT)*_

First, --- ALL peoples everywhere have the right to self-determination.  The right to self-determination does not mean that an opposing force has to hand it to the claimant on a silver platter.  All peoples have the right to tangible things, like a million dollars.  It doesn't mean that a bank has to give it to them as "unearned income."  And All Peoples have the right to be happy.  It does not mean that we have to hire a clown for them.

Second, --- the right to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty, applies equally to the Jewish People.  Just because the Arab Palestinians make a demand, does not mean that the UN Recommendation offered to and accepted by the Jewish People must be void.  

Third, --- At the time of the Arab Invasion (15 May 1948) - crossing their individual boundaries into the Successor Government of the UNPC over the territory, there was NO Arab Palestinian Government.  The Arab Higher Committee, with no territorial control over anywhere in the Region, acted on behave of the Arab Palestinian.  The All Palestine Government was under the protection and control of the Egyptian Occupation Forces in Gaza.  The territory of the West Bank was under the control of the Jordanian Occupation.  The remainder of the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, was in Israeli control.

Fourth, ---  There are two importance aspects to A/RES/37/43.

•  Whatever your interpretation of its meaning, its meaning could not have an effect on event that took place three decades (plus) before the 1982 General Assembly Resolution was created.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the General Assembly may:

Consider and approve the United Nations budget and establish the financial assessments of Member States;
Elect the non-permanent members of the Security Council and the members of other United Nations councils and organs and, on the recommendation of the Security Council, appoint the Secretary-General;
Consider and make recommendations on the general principles of cooperation for maintaining international peace and security, including disarmament;
Discuss any question relating to international peace and security and, except where a dispute or situation is currently being discussed by the Security Council, make recommendations on it;
Discuss, with the same exception, and make recommendations on any questions within the scope of the Charter or affecting the powers and functions of any organ of the United Nations;
Initiate studies and make recommendations to promote international political cooperation, the development and codification of international law, the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and international collaboration in the economic, social, humanitarian, cultural, educational and health fields;
Make recommendations for the peaceful settlement of any situation that might impair friendly relations among nations;
Consider reports from the Security Council and other United Nations organs.
But a Generalized Resolution is not Law; and must go through a specific process.​
•  Since when did the General Assembly Resolution on the Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination... December 1982, go into law?  That is right, it did not.  It is a variation on a theme found in Article I of the UN Charter (self-determination).  And that did not specifically apply to the Question of Palestine, in that, the Charter is not clairvoyant --- written by seer who publishing the Charter as a collections of prophecies.  No claim was made by any Arab Authority that one of the Allied Powers was acting as a colonial power using the Jewish people as a proxy.  And the Jewish Agency, to which the​
Finally, --- The Palestinians had no direct control of any territory in a stand-alone fashion.  The Successor Government to the Mandatory was the UN Palestine Commission.  Israel was controlled by Israel.  The West Bank was controlled by Jordan; and the Gaza Strip was controlled by the Egyptian Government through the All Palestine Government _(established by 22 September 1948 and dissolved in 1959 by the Egyptian Government)_.  The Jewish Agency may have been described as a recognized as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine, it was not a foreign government or Colonial Power within the Allied Powers.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 21, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You push this claim quite often.
> 
> ...


Finally, --- The Palestinians had no direct control of any territory in a stand-alone fashion.​
Of course that is a meaningless statement. That is not a requirement for the inalienable rights of a people.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence,​
Do you have a document for the right to self determination of the Jews?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Do you have a document for the right to self determination of the Jews?



Wait, what?!  Aren't you the one who keeps arguing for the inalienable rights to self-determination?  Does this not apply to Jews?


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 22, 2016)

If we are going to call the accusation of apartheid in Israel by its real name we'd be using the term BULL SHIT a lot.  

There is no similarity between the restrictions the pali's bring on themselves and the SA institution of apartheid.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 22, 2016)

Lipush said:


> There is no difference between Jew and Non-Jew in Israel.
> 
> Again, pro-Palestinians and their lies.


You want to be recognized as the Jewish State.

You don't get more apartheid than that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have a document for the right to self determination of the Jews?
> ...


There are multiple UN resolutions and other documents expressing the inalienable right of the Palestinian's to self determination.

I haven't seen any for the Jews. That is why I asked.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Nada Elia: Confronting Apartheid*
> **








And where is your evidence of apartheid taking place in Israel then. Still waiting for the examples of muslims being denied access to water, housing, and representation. Are you confusing what happens in Palestine with what happens in Israel again ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid vs Israel democracy :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes
> ...







 How is it a deflection when it deals with apartheid practises and shows where the real apartheid is


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Plenty of it in Palestine coming from the arab muslims, none in Israel. Or have you forgotten the arab muslim charters that call for the death of all Jews in Palestine already.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 As Jordanian of course as Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988. The armistice was signed in 1967 between the Israelis and the Jordanian Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between Jew and Non-Jew in Israel.
> ...







 When you realise that this is what the LoN and the UN called Israel before it was created then it is only fair. Then when you realise that the UN entered Israel as the Jewish state in 1949 then it is only fair that the other UN nations should recognise Israel as such.

 Only Jew haters see anything wrong in Israel being the Jewish state, as it gives them just that little bit more legitimacy.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Because they apply to all nations and not just Palestine. So when will the Palestinians take the next baby step to full self determination and become a nation standing on its own two feet ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 WRONG AGAIN as you also have Jordan and the P.A. Just that you wont accept that Jordan is part of Palestine and that the P.A. is refusing to hold elections. According to the UN the P.A. represents the Palestinians in the UN, or do you want the UN to kick them out ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Once again you are trying to use resolutions retrospectively and as International laws. The link was from 1982 which was 15 years after the armistice negotiations and 6 years before the declaration of the Palestinian state


P F Tinmore said:


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








 LoN mandate  for starters, then the UN that turned down their illegal attempt at stealing Israel that had been declared months earlier. So where do you get the impression that Palestine existed as a state prior to 1988, when no treaty stated any such thing


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







And which treaty is that taken from and in what year was it formulated ? And does it mention Palestine by name as one of those non self governing territories ?


You need to understand that what was expected in 1948 is not the same as what was expected in 1967, or 2015. In other words you cant expect laws drawn up in 2015 to be valid for 1948 without them also being valid for 1750, 1099 or 635.



 Yes it is the LoN mandate of Palestine that sets their rights in stone. You are shown this every time you ask the same stupid question as if the wording will somehow change overnight. Then there is the UN charter, or more precisely the section added in 1949


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So produce these multiple UN resolutions that name only the Palestinians as having an inalienable right to self determination


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


They are. Its called BDS.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Link posted a couple pages ago.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Lipush said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference between Jew and Non-Jew in Israel.
> ...



Then wanting to be recognized as a Palestinian State is also apartheid.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



So the right of self-determination is not an inherent right.  Its only a right when it is granted or assigned or conferred upon a group?


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


The above perhaps perfectly defines the debilitating disease of _Pal’istanian Mentality™_.

It's a condition symptomatic of feeble excuses for a complete lack of ability to take responsibility for the pratfalls, disasters, gaffes and general inability to manage one's affairs.

I'm afraid that the silly BDS’ers have no better plan for managing the civil affairs of government than the Islamic terrorists occupying Gaza have.  It's both pitiful and a little contemptible that Pali-arabs refuse to hold themselves responsible for their self-created inability to hold to some pretty basic standards of rational behavior.  But then, islamist ideology is fully at odds with relevant, first world standards of behavior.

It really is remarkable that with acknowledgement of the billions of dollars of welfare payments that continues the fraud of Pal'istanians, these knuckle-draggers still cannot manage to crawl their way out of the diseased society they have created.

What's infuriating is that the relevant first world continues the charade such that on the one hand, Pal’istanian arab terrorists criticize, condemn and revile the hated Westerners/infidels who shower them with money while on the other hand they continually come begging for more like some underpaid prostitute.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Hollie said:


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


Nice rant!


----------



## Hollie (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Nice retreat. 

The queue for welfare checks is over there   ------->


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


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


It comes with the territory, literally.

All* peoples* have the right to self determination.

Define the meaning of peoples.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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




Yes, yes.  Are you going to give me the same bullshit argument Challenger is giving me over on the other thread?  The Jewish people are not a people.  

Why don't you give me your meaning of "peoples".


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


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


You wouldn't believe me if I told you. You should figure it out on your own.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Having been a country for almost 70 years, the Israelis are a people, distinct from the Jewish religion.  Very creative, ambitious, overly educated and intellectual, brash, tough, quick to anger but friendly and hospitable.  The society is a cross between Middle Eastern and Western, traditional and modern.  Israelis might have started out as just being "Jewish", but now they're a people all their own.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> You wouldn't believe me if I told you. You should figure it out on your own.



No, actually I am quite excited to hear your thoughts.  I will very likely disagree with you since your aim seems to be to deny fundamental rights to the Jewish people and only the Jewish people.  I have a definition which applies universally and doesn't pick and choose based on who you wish to exclude.  Do you?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't believe me if I told you. You should figure it out on your own.
> ...


No you aren't. You will just blow off anything I say. If you figure it out for yourself, you can't blame me for being incorrect.


----------



## Kondor3 (Feb 22, 2016)

Call apartheid in Israel by its name?

*Urban beautification*.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Then wanting to be recognized as a Palestinian State is also apartheid.


Don't change the subject, we're not talking about that.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Then wanting to be recognized as a Palestinian State is also apartheid.
> ...




Of course we are talking about that.  You want to have a special set of rules for Israel and Jews.  I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of that attitude.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



In other words, you've got nothing.  You have no set of criteria for defining a peoples which you can apply universally.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It comes with the territory, literally.
> 
> All* peoples* have the right to self determination.
> 
> Define the meaning of peoples.



You have to decide what you are arguing.  Are you arguing that people have an *inherent* right to self-determination?  Or are you arguing that self-determination is an outcome of treaties and agreements?


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Of course we are talking about that.  You want to have a special set of rules for Israel and Jews.  I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of that attitude.


The thread title does not say "Apartheid in Palestine", it says "Apartheid in Israel".

Stop jerking us around!


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we are talking about that.  You want to have a special set of rules for Israel and Jews.  I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of that attitude.
> ...




Oh please.  We both know that threads are flexible enough to compare and contrast both sides of the equation.  So this is just a cop-out.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 22, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > It comes with the territory, literally.
> ...


Are you arguing that people...​
Not people, peoples. Let's not change the debate.

OK. The French are *a people.* The British are *a people.* The Canadians are* a people. *The Palestinians are *a people.* And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.


----------



## Boston1 (Feb 22, 2016)

The real name of apartheid in Israel is Bull Shit. 

The whole notion is nothing more than the same old tired Arab Muslim accusation they themselves are guilty of while the Israeli's do everything they can to integrate their Arab Muslim population into the political and social fabric of Israel.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 22, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> OK. The French are *a people.* The British are *a people.* The Canadians are* a people. *The Palestinians are *a people.* And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.



Are the Jewish people a people?  Yes or no?  

Do all people(s) (including the Jewish people) have an *inherent *right to self-determination?  Yes or no?  

Do they only have an inherent right to self-determination in certain places?  If yes, what places?  

If they are removed from their place, do they or do they not maintain their rights as people of that place?


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Arab apartheid / Muslim apartheid vs Israel democracy :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes
> ...



When others speak the truth you call it selection . You can't handle the truth. Let's talk about Saudi Arabia where Muslims are not allowed to enter their " Holy Cities" or Christians that are being killed by those who practiceyour " religion" or the NJA Policy in the " Palestinian srare"  Best thing Israel can do is continue what they are doing.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


 
Another lie by the Palestinian. There is Hamas and Fatah


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Oh please.  We both know that threads are flexible enough to compare and contrast both sides of the equation.  So this is just a cop-out.


No it's not a cop out.

There is nothing in print, no public statements, no comparable proclamations by Palestinian authorities, demanding a state (that they don't have), be recognized as the "Palestinian State", exclusively giving citizenship rights to every Arab in the world, no matter where they are currently living.

You are trying to inject conjecture, a hypothetical, a myth into this discussion, that is not based in reality.  There is no Palestinian comparison to the Zionist claim that Israel be recognized as the "Jewish State".

And pushing this into the conversation, is an attempt to convolute the discussion to such a point, that an intelligent debate becomes impossible.


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Are the Jewish people a people?  Yes or no?
> 
> Do all people(s) (including the Jewish people) have an *inherent *right to self-determination?  Yes or no?
> 
> ...


Palestinian's, are the Jews not removed.

But that's a discussion on another thread.


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL (Feb 23, 2016)

ILOVEISRAEL said:


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





ILOVEISRAEL said:


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


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So when will the Palestinians take the next and last baby step towards full self determination, and stop expecting others to do it for them. The last step is to stand up in the UN chamber and declare that Palestine will start talks with all of its neighbours on peace and mutual borders starting from a neutral base. After declaring that fair and free elections would be held to elect a government based around residents of the state of Palestine and not foreign nationals.

 BDS is not Palestinian, and it does not speak for the Palestinians which you know by the number of links to Palestinian sources that demand BDS stop destroying Palestine.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 So why don't you post it again so we don't need to keep flitting back and forth.   Or does it apply after the fact , and so is being used retrospectively in the hope no one will notice


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 But very true of the Palestinian/muslim mentallity


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Define the meaning of self determination, and in doing so show why the Palestinians have refused to take it in board. Only they can give themselves free determination, we cant hand it to them on a plate as that would be foreign interference.


 The definition you crave is a group of humans with similar beliefs, customs, morals and needs. They do not need to be from the same place and can be widespread, as in the Jews who inhabit the whole world. They can be a sub group of a larger group again as in the Jews who have various groups who have different beliefs, customs and morals.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So you don't have a valid unbiased answer, who would have thought it possible ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Will you accept the American definition of " people " then


[countable]a group consisting of all the persons who belong to a nation, religion, or race: can be followed by a singular or plural verb


the Japanese/Spanish/German people

They are a proud, dignified people.

Over thousands of years, peoples from central Asia came to settle here.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Then wanting to be recognized as a Palestinian State is also apartheid.
> ...









 Lead by example, and stop deflecting and derailing when the arguments get out of your control


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Billo_Really said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we are talking about that.  You want to have a special set of rules for Israel and Jews.  I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of that attitude.
> ...









 And I am still waiting for you to provide an unbiased non partisan link that shows Israel to be apartheid.   All you come up with is things that happen in Palestine covered by International law.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > OK. The French are *a people.* The British are *a people.* The Canadians are* a people. *The Palestinians are *a people.* And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.
> ...


That's No, No, No and No.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So are the Roma not a people, the Bedouins, the Inuits and all the other groups that have a nomadic lifestyle. Does this mean the Syrians that moved with the harvests across the M.E. have no sovereignty because they have no ties to the lands they work ? Does this mean that now the "Palestinians" have been evicted from the lands they stole in 1949 that they are no longer a people.

Your attempt at taking away the Jews inherent rights by your play on words has failed as the Jews were and are a people. This was recognised in the 20C which is why they were granted 22% of palestine for their NATIONal home. The arab muslims received 78% of Palestine as theirs.


 Your comparison fails as the French already claim sovereignty over most of the UK because of rights of conquest, and they have lived here ever since.  You would have been better using Americans claims to America, which according to your criteria are ZERO


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


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








 How about supportive links to your reply

 Why aren't the Jews a people in your eyes when the International community say they are

 Why don't the Jews not have the same rights as the muslims then ?

 Why don't they have rights in certain places ?

The last is easy this is because right of return is not legally binding


 But the major reason for your claims seems to be one of RACISM as you don't see the Jews as having any rights do you.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, periodically the pro-Palestinians throw this into the game as a distraction and diversion.  

*(FOR P F TINMORE ONLY)*

ANSWER:  The Palestinians have nor ight to self-determination if the term "peoples" is obfuscated.  "No definition of indigenous peoples has been offered."

*(FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT P F TINMORE)*

This question is a matter of subterfuge _(deceit used in order to achieve the Palestinian objective and goal)_.  In the context used in this discussion, either everyone has the right --- or --- no one has the right.  The meaning of the plural of "people" is unimportant.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(OBSERVATION & REFERENCE)*

7. Scope of the definition of indigenous peoples.

In the context of the UN declaration, no definition of indigenous peoples has been offered, nor is it expected that one will be offered. The US has determined it does not need to define who is indigenous in order to accept a final draft. We can apply the term domestically consistent with our domestic policy on federally recognized tribes while supporting an approach to this issue that takes account of differing historical experiences in other countries and regions.

If it should become necessary to provide some benchmarks in defining who is indigenous, it will be the position of the United States that the scope of "indigenous peoples" should be determined with reference to fundamental criteria, including but not limited to self-determination, aboriginal status, and distinct culture and customs. The application and relative weight of these criteria should account for differing historical circumstances around the world. For example, in the United States, aboriginal status is a necessary criterion in identifying indigenous peoples. In other countries or regions, it could be appropriate to apply the criteria differently in light of different historical experience, including histories of colonization, migration patterns (including forced migrations), the formation of existing or prior states in those areas, and efforts to assimilate indigenous peoples into surrounding cultures or societies.

In the context of the OAS declaration, a definition of indigenous peoples is under discussion. The US should therefore support the approach described above, but recognize the shared historical experience of aboriginal, precolonial peoples in the Americas region.

*SOURCE:* *U.S. National Security Council, Position on Indigenous Peoples (January 18, 2001) Subject: Indigenous Peoples*​•  UN FACT SHEET --- *Who are indigenous peoples?*
•  *Cultural Survival advocates for Indigenous Peoples'* rights and supports Indigenous communities’ self-determination, cultures and political resilience since 1972.  
•  UN World Health Organization - *Health of indigenous peoples **Fact sheet N°326 **October 2007* -- *Who are indigenous peoples?*
•  *Chapter I --- Article 1(2) --- Purpose and Principles --- UN Charter* "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
•  *A/RES/**49/148*. Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination --- using Article 1(2) of the Charter as derivative authority:  Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such
rights;
*(COMMENT)*

While there are earlier documents that use the word "peoples" in their context, the first real UN Authoritative Document _(Treaty like Authority)_ to use the word in reference to the "right of self-determination"  is the UN Charter.  Unless otherwise stated, all UN Resolution that use the word "poeples," defaults to the intent of the Charter.  It is true that both the *International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights *(CESCR) and the *International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights* (CCPR), both of which entered into force as international law stipulate the UN Charter as the derivative source; and with the CCPR stating in Article 1:  "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

LOGIC:  The word "peoples" is the plural of "people."  If the pro-Palestinian movement content that the "right of self-determination" is obfuscated and rendered void because the "Pro-Palestinian" believe it is an unintelligible --- then the right as given in A/RES/51/190 --- "Permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources" is rendered invalid because the Resolution itself is non-binding, and is only given marginal authority when it uses the derivative source _(the UN Charter or the CCPR)_.

It cannot be the case that one people _(ie Palestinians)_ have a right that is superior to any other people _(ie Israelis)_.  Whether that right is declared "inherent" _(a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable)_ --- it cannot be the case that one people _(the Palestinians)_ can hindrance or restraint another people _(the Israelis)_ from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > OK. The French are *a people.* The British are *a people.* The Canadians are* a people. *The Palestinians are *a people.* And on. They are all the people of their respective place. Collectively, all of these different sets of people are peoples. It is the people of the place who have rights. The French cannot claim sovereignty in Britain because it is not their place.
> ...


You are letting religion cloud your view as to who are the people of the place.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> It cannot be the case that one people _(ie Palestinians)_ have a right that is superior to any other people _(ie Israelis)_. Whether that right is declared "inherent" _(a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable)_ --- it cannot be the case that one people _(the Palestinians)_ can hindrance or restraint another people _(the Israelis)_ from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.



Oo.. that's interesting, suddenly we've dumped the "Jewish people" in favour of the "Israeli people". 

Well OK, the Israeli people didn't exist before 1948 and have never been indigenous to Palestine, having come from Europe. So that means the indigenous Palestinians, by default have a superior claim/right to self determination. Thanks for clarifying that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, periodically the pro-Palestinians throw this into the game as a distraction and diversion.
> 
> ...


Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.

This is so much smoke.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I told you not to read further.  You asked the question:  Define the meaning of peoples?  _*Post #50*_
You asked --- I answered.

The remainder of the post was meant for those with an open mind; relative to the application of unrestricted right on the basis of ethical and moral grounds; and not oriented on a legal compliance approach.  Since most aggressive and hostile pro-Palestinians are Jihadist and terrorists, I knew the issue of "smoke" would arise.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.
> 
> This is so much smoke.


*(COMMENT)*

Relative to the use of the term "peoples" --- the timeline was not specified in the question.  I think I was the one that argued the effective date of the Laws, and the and the non-binding obligation of the resolutions.

In terms of the "indigenous peoples," (Article 1,  A/RES/61/295. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) you really don't have a definition for that _(so how would you know if it applied or not)_.  And in reference to sovereignty, --- you have no answer for that.  In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.  And even after 1988 --- and through to today --- whether the Palestinians have established such control and authority necessary and sufficient to consider they maintained sovereignty over any portion of the territory is very debatable.  While Israel maintains two armistice agreements and two peace treaties, all four of which specify a demarcation of one sort or another, the  Palestinians only have the Oslo Accord, which (at best) give limited authority over Areas "A and B."  Since the abandonment of the Gaza Strip, the indigenous peoples of Gaza establish and maintain governance.

Q:  Do the Palestinians maintain a Border Crossing or Immigration Point on any boundary?
Q:  Have the Palestinians established any boundaries?​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al

I'm not sure this is true, relative to Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> Rocco, the indigenous rights thing is applicable only to those whose countries were conquered before it was illegal to do so. It does not apply to the Palestinians.
> 
> This is so much smoke.


*(SIDEBAR QUESTION)*

Exactly what "International, Customary, or other Law" do you allege Israel violated in this regard and when?


*HINT:  You cannot use The Peace of Westphalia (1648)...
HINT:  You cannot use Article 2(4) in Charter 1 of the UN Charter...*​
And be a little more specific as to the allegation...   Are you saying "conquered"?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

Well, it has a meaning.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be the case that one people _(ie Palestinians)_ have a right that is superior to any other people _(ie Israelis)_. Whether that right is declared "inherent" _(a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable)_ --- it cannot be the case that one people _(the Palestinians)_ can hindrance or restraint another people _(the Israelis)_ from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The term *Israelis* includes "All citizens" or "those under the care of the Israeli government" within the territory claimed and outlined by a border maintained by Israel _(Golan Heights of Golan Sub-District and East Jerusalem, which was annexed by Israel after 1967)_ --- including:

•  The population of Jewish 75%, 
•  Muslim 17.5%, 
•  Christian 2%, 
•  Druze 1.6%, and other 3.9% (2013 est.) includes atheists, and agnostics.​
The term *Jewish* People refers to the Article 4 Mandate for Palestine people _(willing to immigrate and establish a Jewish National Home)_; including the people of the Jewish Agency.  OR the population of Jewish 75% of the 8 million Israelis that consider themselves Jewish.

The Jewish People are a subset of the Israeli population.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I told you not to read further.  You asked the question:  Define the meaning of peoples?  _*Post #50*_
> You asked --- I answered.
> ...


In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​
The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.

Your post is based on false premise.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al
> 
> I'm not sure this is true, relative to Palestine.
> 
> ...


"conquered"?

*seize area by military force: *to take control of a place by force of arms


----------



## Challenger (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Challenger,  et al,
> 
> Well, it has a meaning.
> 
> ...



"Israeli" is a nationality, not an ethnicity; there's a difference.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

This is somewhat a contentious distinction.



Challenger said:


> "Israeli" is a nationality, not an ethnicity; there's a difference.



*(COMMENT)*

Citizenship may be acquired by:

Birth
The Law of Return
Residence
Naturalization
The Universal Set is in terms of "people;" or the "set" of "all people."  There are very characteristics that an individual person (constituent) may exhibit.  Some number of constituents may be "long haired," and some may be "bald."  Constituents might have other characteristics; some may be "right handed" and some may be left handed."  These characteristics may be dependent or independent.  For instance, a dominant characteristic can be "blue."  And constituents that are "left handed" must also be "Blue."  But "Blue" constituents can be any color.

The Laws pertaining to Nationality, Citizenship and Return, are NOT discriminatory; contrary to popular belief, they are characteristic driven in accordance with the original intent by the Allied Powers in 1920 at San Remo:  "Establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  A Jewish Constituent is dependent on an external criteria:  it must be "a person who was born of a Jewish mother _(or the composite factor of having  become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion)_." 

Now the question of the characteristic of "Ethnicity" has been raised.  It is an Insignificant characteristic.  It is neither dependent or independent to the issues of Laws pertaining to Nationality, Citizenship and Return; a mutually exclusive characteristic.  Jewishness can be derived by:

Birth
Jewish 75% (of which Israel-born 74.4%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 17.4%, Africa-born 5.1%, Asia-born 3.1%), non-Jewish 25% (mostly Arab) (2013 est. CIA Factbook).

To be Israeli Nationality can be derived by:

Birth
The Law of Return
Residence
Naturalization
Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.  I can be of any religion  culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.  This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on  a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.  Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.  It is why Israel is one of the most racially, culturally and diverse nations in the Middle East; much, much different than any member of the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Now this is interesting.  You have the opportunity to teach me something!



P F Tinmore said:


> [
> In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​
> The physical control of a territory is not the issue. It is the right to control that territory. The right to control the territory can be violated by illegal external interference. That does not negate that right.
> 
> Your post is based on false premise.


*(COMMENT)*

I have heard of all kinds of "rights" brought-up by the Palestinians.  I have heard of the:


•  right of self-determination,
•  rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
•  right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant,
•  right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence,
•  right to liberty and security of person,
•  victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
•  right to be presumed innocent,​
And I've heard of the rights that some "rights:"


•  shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
•  to hold opinions without interference.  
•  to acquire a nationality.
•  and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives;
(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors;
(c) To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.


BUT, I've never heard of the "right to control that territory."  IT MUST BE REMEMBERED that many of the above-mentioned rights are not enforceable.  That they are NOT subject to restrictions; EXCEPT THOSE which the Israelis (or any other country) find necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.  Every Israeli has the right to the protection of the Israeli Defense and Security Forces against such unwarranted interference or attacks by hostile Arab Palestinians.  (*Article 17 CCPR*)

•  Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.​So, where is this right to control articulated?

Finally, the Stimson Doctrine, affirmed by the Council of the League of Nations and UN General Assembly in the Charter, is a prohibition base on acts of aggression.   It was not based on the defense of the West Bank when Jordan opened fire on Israeli in June 1967.  The territory was lost in the course of the successful defense of Israel.   The West Bank was abandon  on 31 July 1988 to the Government of Israel; which had effective control.

Most Respectfully,
R​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 23, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Now this is interesting.  You have the opportunity to teach me something!
> 
> ...


You are the one who brought up control.

In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​
And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel *controlled* 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.

Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.

The right to self determination without external interference.

The right to independence and sovereignty.

The right to territorial integrity.​
How many of these rights are violated by foreign control?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?



P F Tinmore said:


> You are the one who brought up control.
> 
> In fact, prior to 1988, you cannot demonstrate where the Arab Palestinians were ever granted or physically controlled the territory.​
> And historical reports of the 1948 war state that Israel *controlled* 78% of Palestine. Now, if it is the people of the place who control the territory that is their right. If the territory is under foreign control that is a definition of occupation.


*(COMMENT)*

Where is it that gives _(inalienable means nothing in terms of execution) _the right to the Hostile Arab to prevent the right of self-determination pursued by the Jewish People?  




P F Tinmore said:


> The right of self-determination is an "inalienable right of the Jewish People."
> 
> Look at the standard list of inalienable rights.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

None of these rights were violated.  The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.  While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.

REMEMBER:  "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 While you are letting racist Jew hatred cloud your view as to which groups can claim to be people. The Jews have as much right to a NATIONal home as the arb muslims, and that right extends to doing so on land granted to them by the sovereign owners of the land. Just as they granted 3 times as much land to the arab muslims for their national home in Palestine. It is you bringing it down to religion when you deny the Jews their rights to self determination on their land free from foreign arab muslm interference.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > It cannot be the case that one people _(ie Palestinians)_ have a right that is superior to any other people _(ie Israelis)_. Whether that right is declared "inherent" _(a permanent and essential and vested characteristic attribute) or "inalienable" (not revocable and not transferable)_ --- it cannot be the case that one people _(the Palestinians)_ can hindrance or restraint another people _(the Israelis)_ from exercising their right to self-determination as recommended by the International Community.
> ...









 Then I ask again for your evidence of the Israeli people having all came from Europe, when the evidence shows that the vast majority came from the surrounding lands ( over 1 million in 1949 alone )

 Te indigenous Palestinians being the Jews of course as the UN showed that the arab muslims did not meet with the criteria needed to be called palestinans. So they have the lesser claim under international law and the UN charter.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So when did this  "indigenous rights thing" come about, and when did it become illegal to conquer land.

 A clue UN res 242 hints at it possibly becoming international law, but no date was set for its implementation. And that was agreed after Israel had conquered gaza, golan heights and the west bank.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 And the group that gets in first wins the day, which Israel did in 1948 before the arab muslims had got out of bed. It was only after the Jewish farmers and their wives started to destroy the well armed arab league forces that they tried to subvert the Jews declaration illegally.  Your claims that the arab muslims should be granted self determination while removing that of the Jews shows that you just don't want the Jews to live. The Jews were granted 22% of Palestine the rest went to the Palestinians, can you understand that fact and what it means ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?
> 
> ...


Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?​
The people who came from Europe to take the country from the natives started it.

REMEMBER:  "Rights" does not mean that something must be handed to the Hostile Arab Palestinian just because they say they want it.​
Rights are not handed out by the people with the guns. They are inherent to the people.


----------



## jillian (Feb 24, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...




there is no apartheid in israel no matter how many times jew haters say it.

there is however an intentional exclusion of jews from muslim countries. if only your outrage extended to jews. but your hate doesn't permit that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Who opened hostilities against who in 1948?
> 
> ...


The Hostile Arab rejected the recommendations of the International Community, then attempted to take by force what they could not achieve though diplomacy.​
The Palestinians rejected the partition of their country that they had every right to do.

While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination...​
Where does it say that colonialists have better rights than the natives?

Link?


----------



## Challenger (Feb 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.



You are not seriously suggesting "Jewishness" is a disease?



RoccoR said:


> I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.



What if the mother was a convert?



RoccoR said:


> This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.



Then why the insistance on a "Jewish state" why not a state of all those people who want to become "Israelis" whatever their background?



RoccoR said:


> Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.



True, it's all about Judaism and Jewish supremacy.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

Well, I probably did make a mistake here.  Yes, it was a very bad choice of words; and I apologize to everyone.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I should have left the word "bacteria's" out, it did not convey the thought I intended.    It looked much different in my mind.  You are must assuredly correct.  I apologize (headspace and timing was off). 



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > I can be of any religion culturally, and of any race ethnically; but whatever else I could be, if I was born of a Jewish Mother, I am Jewish by a genetically past trait.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I'm sure not qualified to speak for a Rabbinical Court of Judaism.  I'm sure that issue has come up before.  My thought is that it would make no difference.  It is generational, with the characteristic of Jewishness in the descents determined through the female line.  (I hope I said that right.  But again, that question is for a rabbinical Court.)



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > This is one reason why the Israelis have no criminal intent based on a national, ethnical, racial or religious group --- OR --- a criminal intent in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group.
> ...


[/quote]
*(COMMENT)*

The distinction is no so radically different than the restriction that forbids non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina; places of pilgrimage and prayer. And for several centuries, both the Jewish and Muslim, have a religious interest in the site.

The intent of the Allied Powers was to create such a defendable place --- (a Jewish National Home) --- that the Jewish People would be forevermore, protected against the manipulation of law in order to subjugate, suppress, and prosecute Jewish People under the color of law.  The Arab Palestinian would deny that protection and a safe haven and place of refuge for the Jewish in the case another deadly period of anti-semitism were to arise.



Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Race and ethnic background are immaterial to Jewishness.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Your response here, does not address the implication.  The characteristic of being Jewish has nothing to do with Hostile Judaism or Jewish Supremacy.  The establishment of a Jewish State is an announcement to the world and the Jewish People that never again will the Jewish People be without a safe port of call.

The *MS St. Louis* was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 908 Jewish refugees from Germany. After they were denied entry to Cuba and the United States, the refugees were finally accepted in various European countries, and *historians have estimated that approximately a quarter of them died in death camps* during World War II.  *The Voyage of the Damned*

_*Exodus 1947*_ was a ship that carried Jewish emigrants from France to British Mandatory Palestine on July 11, 1947. Most of the emigrants were Holocaust survivors who had no legal immigration certificates for Palestine. Following wide media coverage, the BritishRoyal Navy seized the ship and deported all its passengers back to Europe.​
Never again should the Jewish culture, Jewish People and Jewish beliefs be at the mercy of unsure Allies -- be placed in the sole hands of Powers that demonstrated during WWII that they would not come to their aid, and deny them a save haven.

The reason is not about "supremacy."  It is about the safety and preservation of the Jewish People and Culture that was not respected in the past by either the US or the UK (Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 As the evidence shows it was the arab league who invaded in 1947 with the sole intent of wiping out the Jews and destroying any future Israel. This had been culminating from 1923 when the LoN announced the Mandate of Palestine that gave less than 1% of the former Ottoman lands to the Jews as their NATIONal home.

The people who came from Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen and Pakistan started it


 The only thing you get correct is that the Hostile Arab Palestinian is not handed rights because they demand them, they have to meet certain criteria. And one of those criteria was to have actual residency of the land for two years before becoming a Palestinian. This they failed as they were recent armed invaders who deserted in the face of battle. Another thing you don't understand is that rights granted in 1988 do not apply before that date, and  so the Palestinians only had the rights granted by international law of that time. This meant they did not have any rights to the land granted to the Jews in 1923, and the Jews had the right to defend that land from attack. So the Jews are the people until such a time as the arab muslims remove their apartheid laws banning Jews from living in their nations, until this is done the arab muslims will get the same treatment as the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


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








 Says which law, as the last I heard the term Jew is legally an ethnicity, unlike muslim which is a follower of islam. Try being more open minded and less racist


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 And Jewish Palestine was not under foreign control, as the LoN mandate shows, but arab muslim Palestine was due to the invasion force of the arab league. So the parts of Jewish Palestine not taken up in 1948 were under foreign arab league interference.

 The arab muslims gave away their right to independence and soveriengty when they allowed Egypt and Jordan to annexe the land and withdraw their rights to govern it.

They also gave up territorial integrity when they accepted rule from afar, in this case Egypt and Jordan.

 So as you can see the rights of the Palestinians have been withheld by the arab league foreign interference and occupation.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Jewishness is a characteristic Mothers pass to offspring through bacteria’s DNA.
> ...








 No but in the main a genetic inheritance.

 Then they are not racial Jews

 Because that is how it is seen under international laws, and it is only the Jew haters that want to change the laws that are in favour of the Jews

 That you fail to prove every time you are asked for a link that is unbiased and non partisan, yet still you spew it out with so much Jew hatred.   The hard evidence shows that it muslims that are peddling islam and muslim supremacy, just look at the recent events in Europe.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 24, 2016)

Challenger said:


> What if the mother was a convert?



Generally, if a child is born after a mother's conversion (ie after she is Jewish), the child is considered fully Jewish.  The act of conversion makes one Jewish.  Its like an adoption into the family.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 24, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> While it is true that the Hostile Arab had rights, their rights may not interfere with the establishment of a Jewish National Home and the right of self-determination as recommended by the International Community.



P F Tinmore and Challenger are more than aware that Arab rights do not include denying rights to other groups of people.  That's why they work so hard to deny that the Jewish people ARE a people.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 24, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Links?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 24, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Read your own posts as you have said the same things


----------



## Challenger (Feb 25, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > What if the mother was a convert?
> ...



There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work,   it's self-evident.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 25, 2016)

Challenger said:


> There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work,   it's self-evident.



So you are saying that one can't join an ethnic group? That an ethnic group is determined solely by genetics or physical descendency?  (I most strongly disagree.)   

How do you determine who is Palestinian then?  How do you know who is "pure" Palestinian?  What test do you apply?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 25, 2016)

Shusha, Challenger,  et al,

While it is true, that an "ethnic group" can have similar genetics, that is not a necessary means of membership.



Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > There we have it, thanks. It's all to do with religion, not ethnicity. That's why modern adherents to Judaism are not indigenous to Palestine, nor are they an ethnic group. Oh, and it's not hard work,   it's self-evident.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Members of ethnic groups:
•  share certain beliefs, values, habits, customs and norms because of their common backgroud
•  Define them selves as different and special because of cultural features
•  Viewed and treated *as if* features are biological

Ethnic Groups:  (not all inclusive)
•  Distinguished by cultural similarities (shared among members of that group)
•  Shared Beliefs, Values, Habits, Customs and Norms
•  Common Language, Religion, History, Genetic traits, Race

It is possible (in some cases) to move from one ethnic group to another; or be a member of multiple ethnic group.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Feb 25, 2016)

Thanks, RoccoR   We agree with regard to definitions of "ethnic groups".

Here's my concern.  People who argue against the Jewish people being a "people" or an "ethnic group" or whatever terms we want to use which gives them some sort of moral rights to a homeland or national self-determination, appear to use different standards when evaluating the rights (or lack) or the Jewish people compared to other groups of people. 

So, for example, they readily agree that colonizing, invading cultures can be incorporated into a "people" or "ethnic group" (for example the Arabs who moved to Palestine over the past several hundred years), but then turn around and claim that the entire Jewish people are ineligible for any rights because they have had people incorporated as converts into their group.  Its seems very much like a double standard used to ensure one group has rights while the other does not.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 25, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Well The Re-Conquistador Movement and La Raza probably agree with you.. To THEM California IS Mexico.. 
And they are not satisfied with just immigration amnesty. They want to RUN the place..


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 26, 2016)

Challenger said:


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









 So  one case out of a thousand proves your LIE does it.  So lets apply this to 100 cases of Palestinians that came from Egypt in 1948, and see if it still holds water. It must according to you show that not one Palestinian has the right to exist in any part of Palestine.

 Get your mysoginist head around a Matriarchal society, and stop thinking like an islamonazi terrorist for once.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


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


There is a major difference. There is a peace agreement between the US and Mexico which included the purchase of some land.

There is no such thing in Palestine.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



But that doesn't stop the radical Re-Conquistardors from claiming "right of return" to the SW and California now does it?  And THERE the title to that land clearly DOES go back to a former landholder which was a legitimate  government..

The West Bank was CEDED by Jordan --- peacefully.. Without any claims or assertions that it belonged to "palestinians".. Why would Jordan do such a thing??


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The West Bank did not belong to Jordan. It was not theirs to lose or give away. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan tried to annex the West Bank but the world wouldn't recognize it.


----------



## wrathbone (Feb 26, 2016)

Beside Nazi's, Palestinians have been the terrorists of the globe......dirty pig-dogs that would and do use their children as human shields....but Israel is smart to beat the young generation into submission.  They'll become adults and then Jihad....no-brainer why Israel womps on them...


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 26, 2016)

Shusha,  et al,

There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching.  There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood.  But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted.  An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.

When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions.  The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up.  As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.

There are (generally speaking) four different types of armed conflicts to which the term “wars of national liberation" is use.  In reality there are only two different kinds of conflicts that are covered by the Rules of international armed conflicts (IACs)  and   Rules associated with non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
Under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), everything else is a sub-category:

(1) Those struggles of peoples fighting a foreign invader or occupant; 
(2) Those that have evolved within the United Nations and identified from the practice of States and international organizations, namely colonial and alien domination (or rule or government) and racist regimes which according to Article 1, paragraph 4 of Protocol I, are armed struggles aimed at resisting the forcible imposition or maintenance of such situations to allow people subjected to them to exercise its right of self-determination; 
 (3) Dissident movements which take up arms to overthrow the government and the social order it stands for. Their members may consider themselves as a “liberation movement” waging a “war of national liberation” against a regime or government which masks or represents “alien domination;” 
(4) Armed struggles of dissident movements representing a component people within a plural State which aims at seceding and creating a new State on part of the territory of the existing one.​The Arab-Israel Conflict has each kind of struggle, dispute, movement and insurgency element mentioned, and maybe more. 



Shusha said:


> Thanks, RoccoR   We agree with regard to definitions of "ethnic groups".
> 
> Here's my concern.  People who argue against the Jewish people being a "people" or an "ethnic group" or whatever terms we want to use which gives them some sort of moral rights to a homeland or national self-determination, appear to use different standards when evaluating the rights (or lack) or the Jewish people compared to other groups of people.
> 
> So, for example, they readily agree that colonizing, invading cultures can be incorporated into a "people" or "ethnic group" (for example the Arabs who moved to Palestine over the past several hundred years), but then turn around and claim that the entire Jewish people are ineligible for any rights because they have had people incorporated as converts into their group.  Its seems very much like a double standard used to ensure one group has rights while the other does not.


*(COMMENT)*

Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.  Generally speaking, Generally  most Islamic Radicals, Jihadists and Arabs-Palestinians terrorists have become rejectionist.  And due to the close cooperative support and collaboration by the general population and grass roots community, this rejectionist ideas and philosophies have infected:  

The Arab Higher Committee Delegation wishes to reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
The Arab-Palestinian rejects Jewish Immigration and regard it as an act of aggression and invasion.
Arabs of Palestine regard that any attempt by the Jews to establish a Jewish State in Arab territory is an act of aggression.
The Arab-Palestinian reject all the Recommendation of the UN Special Committee on Palestine.
The Arab-Palestinians rejects any form of partition and considered the entire territory of the former Mandate as Arab Territory _(from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea)_.
The Arab-Palestinians rejects recognition of Jewish State.
The Arab-Palestinians rejects a negotiations with the Israelis.
The Arab-Palestinians rejects any peaceful settlements of disputes.
The Arab-Palestinian rejects the notion that the Jewish People of Israel have the same rights as the Arab-Palestinians might have.  But the Jewish People have been recognized as a people for nearly two centuries. The Jewish People have shared a common cultural heritage, ancestry, history, homeland, language, and religion for nearly 2000 years.  It is not likely the rejection of the fundamental will make a difference.

Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching.  There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood.  But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted.  An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.
> 
> When we talk about the Arab-Israeli Conflict, we are talking about several sets of conditions.  The pro-Palestinian movement, in the interest of confusion and chaos, tend to jumble them up.  As you discuss a question on one set, they immediately jump to another set to disorient the discussion.



The *same propaganda war *is being conducted against the Palestinians...*how can you miss it?*  How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date?  That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are.  That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.



> Essentially, all people (humans) have the same rights; ie all people.
> 
> Most Respectfully,
> R



Exactly.  And that can't be said often enough.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 26, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Shusha,  et al,
> 
> There is no question as to the "right of self-determination" is far reaching.  There are many words that were at the time of the writing of the documents, were commonly understood.  But as time goes on, the interpretation of some of these base documents has become twisted.  An integral part of the propaganda war is to convince that the Jewish People are not real; thus, if they are not real then their rights are not real.
> 
> ...


Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social, and cultural development.​
That is what I have been saying.

That does not include foreign colonialists.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The *same propaganda war *is being conducted against the Palestinians...*how can you miss it?*  How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date?  That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are.  That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.



At the risk of over-using this particular phrase -- I believe you are creating a false equivalency here.  There should be some measurable, objective standard by which a group of people is considered a people. Would you agree?

The issue being argued is that the anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules:  one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else.  That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination.  The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.  

Now you may not agree with the standards chosen by some of the pro-Israel posters, and may want to suggest a different set of standards, which I would welcome, but to say that the pro-Israel "propaganda" is equivalent to the anti-Israel propaganda is simply not correct.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The *same propaganda war *is being conducted against the Palestinians...*how can you miss it?*  How many threads are out there arguing the position that the Palestinians aren't a "real people", that they are "invented", that they did not exist before a certain date?  That they are foreign invaders from Arab countries, that they have no rights where they are.  That the Palestinians are not real and therefore their rights are not real.
> ...



Yes, and the Palestinians qualify.  That doesn't stop the efforts to delegitimize them.



> The issue being argued is that the* anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules:  one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else.*  That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination.  *The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, *usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.



I disagree.  Look at your very careful choice of terms here.  "Anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" rather than "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" or anti-both.  It's *distinction*.

I find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination.  I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:

Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.
The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.

Pro-Israeli's: Israel has the right to defend itself.  When Palestinians do (attacking  military) - it is terrorism.

Pro-Israeli's: Stone throwing - Israel has a right to shoot Palestinian stone throwers because those kids are raised to hate.  Jewish stone throwers are disregarded as a "few rotten" apples who are justified in hating.

Pro-Israeli's:  If you question Israel's justice system or system of administrative detention, you are "supporting terrorists".

Pro-Israeli's:  Palestinians want Palestine to be Judenrein.
Pro-Palestinians: Israel is Apartheid.


Pro-Palestinian does not necessarily mean Anti-Israel though it is made out to be.




> Now you may not agree with the standards chosen by some of the pro-Israel posters, and may want to suggest a different set of standards, which I would welcome, but to say that the pro-Israel "propaganda" is equivalent to the anti-Israel propaganda is simply not correct.



I disagree.  The pro-Israel propaganda is absolutely equivalent to the pro-Palestinian propaganda, with extremes in either direction .


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








Then they should have tried talking in 1999 when they had the chance. they could have always reneged on the treaty and blamed it on the Jews, something they are getting very good at these days.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 Here we go again with the same old islamonazi propaganda

 Where is the proof that the arab muslims existed there before 1917, or even 1949.

 Since when has firing illegal weapons at children in Israel been defence, it is blatant terrorism. But you cant see the difference because your thoughts are clouded

 Still you cant understand that two sets of laws apply, and the Palestinians are policed under 1967 Jordanian laws. A clear example of Israel working within the boundaries of International law

 What is there to question as the legal system in Israel has nothing to do with you, they make their own laws and these include no capital punishment. Complaining about International laws and demanding that the laws of Jordan should apply in Israel is crass stupidity and again having your thoughts clouded.


 Proven by the terms of all of their charters that say the same thing. NO JEWS ALLOWED.

Which not one of you pro palis has ever proven to be the case


 I would say your only pro Palestinian statement clearly shows that they are anti Israel and anti Jew if they are prepared to LIE openly in such a manner


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 WRONG AGAIN as Palestine did not exist until 1988. From 1948 till 1967 the west bank was annexed by Jordan and the native population accepted their rule. They went so far as to vote in Jordans elections and to have representatives in the Jordan government. A clear example of Palestinian free determination in practise, just as the next example showed they were stupid and would throw it all away so they could engage in violence. You really need to start reading some proper history books about the west bank and gaza, and how the natives were treated.


 Try this



Jordan Formally Annexes the West Bank | History Today


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 And the native arab muslims of the west bank chose to go in with Jordan


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



REALLY??? Were they sanctioned for Annexing it?? Did they ABUSE IT?? 

Right now Jordan practices OPEN discrimination against the NEWER Palestinians that live there. And for the most part CONFINES THEM TO CAMPS.. Is THAT apartheid also??

*It's not apartheid if the discriminated class DOES NOT WANT to be citizens or obtain equal access to laws of the land..  It's an insurgency or a rock-throwing mob.. Not even a Nationalist Movement. *

It's basic to this discussion..


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


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



Those allegations are unfortunate. But the fact remains, because they have no credible representation of their own, and refuse to organize a coherent Nationalistic effort ---- they have no CURRENT identity.. Other than indigenous people or rock-tossing missile-firing mob..  And that's been the situation for way too long. 

They are NOT victims of apartheid. Because their aim is not acheive equal status with the title holders. THEY need to figure out what kind of future they want. And quit blaming the long list of "occupiers" for their failure to assert their claim.. 

Leaderless mobs just don't get handed nations in this day and age..


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


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



There are universal rights. I'll sign up for that. But CITIZENSHIP is a privilege bestowed people. Since Palestinians are NOT asking for CITIZENSHIP rights --- (for the most part) --- the current default stand-off is NOT "apartheid"..

Without CITIZENSHIP ---- the rights you naturally possess are not redeemable without representation and negotiation.   SELF-RULE cures all that if you don't want to be a citizen..

*The Palis should be teaching all that in their schools. Rather than training toddlers to hate and conduct futile token resistance.. *


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


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



I agree, the current stand off is not apartheid, but there are some very real inequalities in the Israeli system that resemble apartheid, for example the fact that there is no "Israeli citizenship" - there are Arab Israeli's, Jewish Israeli's, and an attempt to add another seperate citizenship category - Palestinian Christians.  And despite claims otherwise, rights aren't really equal in practice.



> Without CITIZENSHIP ---- the rights you naturally possess are not redeemable without representation and negotiation.   SELF-RULE cures all that if you don't want to be a citizen..
> 
> *The Palis should be teaching all that in their schools. Rather than training toddlers to hate and conduct futile token resistance.. *



Yes, they should...  But the Israeli's are no better (or worse0 in what they teach in their schools.

I'm beginning to think that the oft repeated claim that the Paletinians teach hatred of Jews in their schools to resemble propoganda more than reality.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


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




They have a current identity, they just lack coherent leadership to forge a future.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I am curious as to how your response relates to my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Indeed, the US backed coup in 2007 destroyed the most democratic government in the ME.


----------



## MaryL (Feb 26, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jews aren't any more "white" that are Palestinians. Palestine was a creation of the brits, no more (or less real) than Israel. The OP is being very misleading. IF the Palestinians would be more civilized and less territorial and violent, this wouldn't  be an issue, now, would it?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Yes, and the Palestinians qualify.



They qualify by what objective standard?  The only objective standard I have ever seen used by which they qualify (and I use it myself) is that they self-identify as a distinct culture (and you are the only other person who uses that standard).  Its a perfectly good standard.  And personally, I think more people should use it.  (Of course, the people who will not use it are those opposed to Israel).


> > The issue being argued is that the* anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules:  one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else.*  That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination.  *The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, *usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  Look at your very careful choice of terms here.  "Anti-Israel" and "pro-Israel" rather than "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" or anti-both.  It's *distinction*.



You disagree that there is a double standard?  Or you disagree that the pro-Israeli posters have an internally consistent argument with respect to determining whether or not both parties have rights to self-determination on the territory in question?  If you have any evidence of a pro-Israel argument which is inconsistent -- please outline it.

And yes, there is a distinction between anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  And I very deliberately use those terms.  Why?  Because I don't believe the majority of the anti-Israel posters are pro-Palestinian.  Meaning, I don't believe they are encouraging dialogue and actions which are beneficial to the improvement of the conditions for the Palestinians nor self-determination for the Palestinians.

Frankly, I believe a decent number of Palestinians are not "pro-Palestinian" either in that they are not actually interested in furthering and reaching their own goals as much as they are in defeating Israel's.  I think this is key to understanding the fact that they still are not building nations (let's be honest Gaza and Palestine) and I think it is rooted in the fact that they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel.

I believe this is crystal clear with the disengagement from Gaza.  What possible benefit does importing weapons and indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel serve?  What possible benefit for the Gazan people does diverting 800 million tons of concrete from essential services like water sanitation, sewers, homes, hospitals and schools into building tunnels serve?  How is this ultimately helpful to the Gazan people?  Do you see alot of Hamas government officials talk about rebuilding Gaza, getting the government functioning, establishing trade with Israel and other nations, building a tourist industry?  I don't.  I see alot of talk about destroying Israel.  (and opposition to "occupation" is NOT a cultural identity -- its not enough.)

And btw, I do consider myself to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  I defend this statement by saying that I believe they BOTH have rights on the territory in question and that ultimately the goal is two independent, fully-functioning, self-determining States.




> find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination.  I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:
> 
> Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.


Sure, so the objective standard for sovereign self-determination you are using here is residence -- residing in a place is enough for one to be considered a "people".   I think that standard has relatively little value in that it applies universally -- all people live in a place and exist.  Additionally, by that standard the Jewish people moving into the disputed territory are creating the conditions of sovereignty by the act of residing in that place.  (Now, I'm NOT saying they are or they should -- I'm saying that is the standard YOU have just set up.)




> Pro-Israeli's





> : Israel has the right to defend itself.  When Palestinians do (attacking  military) - it is terrorism.


Both Israel and Palestine have the right to defend themselves.  Palestine is NOT being attacked.  Wanna-be-Palestine is being controlled as a measure of defense.  NOT the same thing.

Secondarily, please acknowledge that a great deal of Palestine's "defense" IS terrorism.

Third, please acknowledge that using or encouraging non-combat personnel in combat roles (especially children, a war crime!) is inappropriate.

*Finally, please pick a few examples of attacks on Israeli military and point out the military objective of those missions, explaining how that military objective will be neutralized by the actions of the combatants involved.*




> Pro-Israeli's





> :  Palestinians want Palestine to be Judenrein.


  Demonstrably, objectively true.  How many Jews live in Gaza?  How many Jews live in Area B?  (For that matter how many Jews live in any of the Arab Muslim countries?)

How many Jews living in what becomes Palestinian territory will be permitted to stay (assuming they renounce Israeli citizenship and adopt Palestinian citizenship)?

Now contrast that with how many Arab Muslims live in Israel.  Which would be the appropriate correlation.



> Pro-Palestinians:





> Israel is Apartheid.


And haven't you already said, on this thread, that this is a false accusation (demonstrably not true)?


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You COULD be right. But I'm not sure this one study is all that definitive..



> A third finding is that there is a lack of information about the other in each sides’ books. Fourth is that the negative depictions and omissions of the other are most pronounced in Israeli religious ultra-Orthodox books and Palestinian books. Israeli secular books are the most self-critical of the three categories.
> 
> The researchers also examined maps in the schoolbooks, and found that in 58 percent of the post-1967 maps in Palestinian schoolbooks, the polity “Palestine” is shown, with its area incorporating everything between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including present-day Israel. There is no mention of Israel.
> 
> ...



REALLY? 58% of maps in Pali textbooks show no Israel? Or 78% of Israeli textbooks show no GreenLine?  See -- here's a factoid with no tangible meaning.. It makes no difference HOW many textbooks a faulty map turns up in.. What matters is IF ONE textbook is used MOST of the time --- and another is hardly EVER used -- that statistic is meaningless.  It's EXPOSURE to that faulty information that matters. 

Maybe they aren't dissing each in the SECULAR textbooks as much as in the past. But
there IS indoctrination from the religious schools --- which are as much a part of life there.

And I'm not aware of substantial differences in legal proceedings, taxation, or participating in voting between RELIGIOUS groups in Israel. I know there are ACCOMODATIONS about military service or working in the Defense Industry. But in SUBSTANCE -- if you go to court, vote or pay your taxes -- it's no big deal..


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 26, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You started out by asking "how "colonists" get better rights than the natives. Obviously when land changes governments -- there may be "natives" that don't want to abide by the new treaties. Like Mexican families that trace their ancestral roots back to the US SW and California.  In their minds --- that's their "ancestral home". And thus there is a not so small movement aimed and determined to "return" and reclaim that land. 

Any indigenous peoples who never asserted THEIR OWN sovereignty -- pretty much have to abide by terms of the governments that they lived under. And after 200 yrs of being rolled over and shoved around and expelled from a lot of a places --- you would THINK --- the Palis would put a higher priority on self-rule and self-determination.. Rather than being a perpetual victim class. 

Even the PO'ed Mexicans that don't abide by the deal that sold out "their homeland" --- have more organization and common sense than to act as victims. They TOO --  want to "re-colonize" their "homeland".. 

Is that a bit clearer now ????


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 27, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Should this be transferred to the creation of Israel thread?

There are some things to look at when it comes to Israel. One of those is colonialism. Both the British and the Zionists openly discussed their colonial project during the Mandate period. The facts on the ground confirm that colonization. However, colonialism was getting a bad name. Peoples around the world were gaining independence from colonial rule. This was made evident by the UN in 1960. The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration Israel dropped its reference to colonialism and now denies what was regularly discussed. The Palestinians, however, are increasingly using the term on their side of the debate.

Then there is foreign rule and domination. Israel was declared inside Palestine by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization. Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence, only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.

According to the theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base of international law, a government derives its legitimacy from the will of the people. Israel's government was established in Palestine with the objection of the vast majority of the people.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 And still no evidence of any apartheid taking place in Israel. You seem to be deliberately ignoring the relevant facts because to not do so would show that the Palestinians are the ones enforcing apartheid

There are two distinct nations with separate governments accepted and recognised by the UN, so there is no comparison with South Africa at all. Yet we still get morons demanding that Israel hands the Palestinians equal rights to the citizens of Israel contrary to the wishes of the P.A.

Where in your link does it show that ALL Israeli schools are teaching their students to kill arab's . I looked twice and could not find any mention of such things. Read your link and it tells you that the comparison was not done like for like, but on an uneven field   " The new study examined 94 books from Palestinian school systems in Gaza and the West Bank, and 74 books from the Israeli secular and religious school systems."     Comparing a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system with the majority of the palestinian curriculum


 Then how about the truth easily verified that is in Israeli text books "  Another secular Israeli book stated, “Since its establishment, the State of Israel sought to make peace with its neighbors, the Arab countries, through Israeli-Arab negotiations” but failed because of Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. " 



 In fact all the things in the palestinian text books happen to be the same propaganda lies posted on here by team paqlestine, so now we know where their source is for the blood libels.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 They lack the intelligence to take the next step forward towards a brighter future. and as a result have failed to win any support. They rely completely on handouts and aid and have lost the impetus to work towards a better place. Stop their aid and pull the UNWRA out of Palestine and you will see a very severe case of peace break out in the M.E.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Is there big holes in your education, as Jordan was allowed to annexe the west bank. That was the basis of your post and it has been blown to pieces.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







 How so when the elections were democratic and fatah lost because of their corruption


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Again using recent changes to act retrospectively on the actions of 1923. It does not work unless you want them to be used against your own life. If they work for 1923 then they must also work for 1750.  Now where was the colonisation in 1960 again that you are getting so hot under the collar about.

The Jews who where the citizens of Palestine declared independence, the only foreign influence was that of the arab league who invaded to wipe out the Jews. They tried to declare ownership of land that had already been claimed and the claim accepted.

 WRONG AGAIN as that premise did not exist in 1948, and the arab muslims were recent invaders as shown by the demographics and the actions of the UN. Once again you fail because you rely on islamonazi LIES and propaganda


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.

The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Because fatah did not want to lose, and so created a civil war to eliminate hamas from the west bank.  In doing so they also used the P.A. charter to stop any chance of elections ever again, so keeping their seats on the gravy train. All the talks of reconciliations are just smoke to hide the attacks on Israel, and to fool the morons into making mountains out of mole hills.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is called part of the self-determination process.  There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate.  This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.

It should be considered an internal domestic concern.  But as all ways, the Palestinians --- unable to accept the consequences of their actions --- blame every one but themselves.  And --- of course --- the US plays the leading role as the evil villain in league with Iblīs.



P F Tinmore said:


> That is correct. Fatah lost the elections.
> 
> The never answered question is how did the losers end up governing the West Bank?


*(COMMENT)*

Supernatural forces at work.

*New Poll Reveals Attitude Among Palestinians*
02/07/2016 Moby _Menachem Rephun_

A poll conducted recently by the Palestinian firm AWRAD (Arab World For Research & Development) revealed that Palestinians overwhelmingly oppose dismantling the Palestinian Authority. The poll also revealed a sharp decline in the percentage of Palestinians who support a third intifada against Israel.

Approximately 1200 Palestinians were questioned for the poll, with a three percent margin of error. According to the poll, 36% of Palestinians questioned stated they would vote for Abbas, with 22% supporting Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. 56% of the Palestinians polled said support the creation of the post of deputy president of the PA, while 30% said they do not.

The poll revealed a jump from 32% to 38% regarding dissatisfaction with Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, 46% said they support Abbas, while only 20% expressed support for Haniyeh. In Gaza, the popularity of Fatah increased to 46%, with only 34% support in the West Bank.

79% of polled Palestinians stated that they opposed dissolving the PA, while 80% said they support holding immediate presidential/parliamentary elections.

*In a 2006 video released by Hamas, a Hamas terrorist declares that ““We will not leave you [the Jews] alone until we have quenched our thirst with your blood, and our children’s thirst with your blood.”

“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”*​
Do we really care what internal problem the Hostile Arab Palestinians are having?

v/r
R


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



The topic is APARTHEID -- not colonialism. YOU  brought the colonialism into the thread. I provided a parallel between the Palis and Mexicans who STILL don't accept the transfer of THEIR homeland to another entity. They don't believe there is such a thing as an Illegal Mexican in the US SW or California. And they constantly whine about the lack of rights and legal access and shafting of paychecks. To them -- THIS situation is also "apartheid".    

Thread is pretty dead anyways. Because the "rights" problems of the Palestinians is simple NOT Apartheid. Doesn't even match the meaning of the word.. The Palestinian "rights" problem is a failure to pursue self-rule and Nationalism.


----------



## flacaltenn (Feb 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is called part of the self-determination process.  There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate.  This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.
> 
> ...



I THINK I care about internal Pali problems Rocco. Otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time in this forum. But I'm never certain I understand them or even have access to information that MIGHT help. So POLLS like that one are golden. 

If 80% of the Palis DO want to rebuild the PA -- that would be a great sign of progress. But we all know that any great leader with visions of future peace -- would be dead in a week. So lower expectations are in order. 



> *“We know that there is no better blood than the blood of Jews.”*



"Arab blood is BAD blood. So bad in fact -- you do a great job of pouring it for yourselves"


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and the Palestinians qualify.
> ...



I agree, it is a good standard.  But they also have their own distinct dialect (and I think dialect is as objective a standard as language), distinct attributes of dress, and cultural history.



> The issue being argued is that the* anti-Israel posters have two sets of rules:  one by which to judge the Jewish people and one by which to judge everyone else.*  That is a double standard, and therefore, discrimination.  *The pro-Israel posters, on the other hand, each have given an internally consistent argument, in line with objective and universally applied standards, *usually with some sort of back-up of international commentary or statements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree that the pro-Israel posters do not have a double standard.

One example of an argument that is not internally consistent (if I understand the term correctly) is in the issue of indigenous and the argument that being indigenous confers greater rights.

Evidence is provided via historical analysis and genetics, that the Palestinians are the product of the same peoples the Jews, mixed with various waves of conquest and religious/cultural conversions.

Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.

This is the same argument used by the Pro-Palestinians I might add and the same terminology:  invaders, squatters, illegal inhabitants, colonists etc.  Do you see the double standard at play?

Another example of the double standard in play: Palestinians honor and name streets after their "martyrs", often those involved in  attacks on civilians including children.  Yet, in the founding of Israel - the Jewish fighters did the same thing.  Irgun was implicated in many attacks on civilian targets, including children, and streets, squares and schools were named after Irgun fighters some of whom were directly responsible for these atrocities.  Double standard?  



> And yes, there is a distinction between anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  And I very deliberately use those terms.  Why?  Because *I don't believe the majority of the anti-Israel posters are pro-Palestinian.  Meaning, I don't believe they are encouraging dialogue and actions which are beneficial to the improvement of the conditions for the Palestinians nor self-determination for the Palestinians.*



I'll make several arguments here.  One - do you honestly believe the majority of "pro-Israel" posters are "pro-Israel" more than "anti-Palestinian"?  I go by the type of arguments they most frequently make:
Palestinians have no inherent rights.
Palestinians are animals.
All Palestinians are terrorists (children killed being referred to as "one less terrorist").
All Palestinians are raised to hate, teach their children to hate in schools.
Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan.
Their main thrust in every argument is that the Palestinians need to be elsewhere.

Each of those arguments demonizes an* entire group* of people, ignoring the complexities of the issue, and seeks to convince the world that *their cause has no legitimacy*.   Are these sorts of statements encouraging dialogue that is beneficial to Israel or a solution to the current impasse or to they just encourage hate?  Is this "pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian"?

The other argument is this.  You may disagree with their position, but the argument is sound and consistent - at least in some cases.  I do agree there are those who's sole motive is "anti-Israel" and the Palestinians are merely the fodder to legitimize their views which are often expressed in a frequent fallback to conspiracy theory for vindication of their anti-Jewish beliefs. 



> Frankly, I believe a decent number of Palestinians are not "pro-Palestinian" *either in that they are not actually interested in furthering and reaching their own goals as much as they are in defeating Israel's. * I think this is key to understanding the fact that they still are not building nations (let's be honest Gaza and Palestine) and I think it is rooted in the fact that* they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel.*



Food for thought...

I would offer up this thought in return.  There are those who can fight for freedom and there are those who can govern.  Very seldom do both those traits exist in the same individual.  Quite often fighters do not make good governors or peace makers or nation builders.  The Palestinians are in a unique situation where they have to both fight an oppressor (and we can argue that term, but that is how they see it) and build a nation.  It's easier to convince people to violence I think than non violence.

"that* they have not coalesced into a cultural identity on their own terms, rather than as an opposition to Israel." - *you have a very good point there...I need to perecolate on this.  I think I might agree. Do you think though, there might be a difference between Gaza and WB Palestinians on this?



> I believe this is crystal clear with the disengagement from Gaza.  What possible benefit does importing weapons and indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel serve?  What possible benefit for the Gazan people does diverting 800 million tons of concrete from essential services like water sanitation, sewers, homes, hospitals and schools into building tunnels serve?  How is this ultimately helpful to the Gazan people?  Do you see alot of Hamas government officials talk about rebuilding Gaza, getting the government functioning, establishing trade with Israel and other nations, building a tourist industry?  I don't.  I see alot of talk about destroying Israel.  (and opposition to "occupation" is NOT a cultural identity -- its not enough.)



What Hamas is doing is not in any way helpful to the Gazans.  They came in to power promising something in opposition to the corruption that defined Fatah, and promised improved economy etc etc.  They also took control illegally.  I do not think Hamas has the Palestinians best interests in mind so much as opposition to Israel.



> And btw, I do consider myself to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.  I defend this statement by saying that I believe they BOTH have rights on the territory in question and that ultimately the goal is two independent, fully-functioning, self-determining States.



I agree and, I feel I am both pro as well (and know there are those here who will crap on this) - I believe Israel has a right to exist, regardless of whatever historical events occurred in the making of Israel - it's flourishing, it's been there for multiple generations, and it has proved itself a capable state.  It has a right to defend itself against attack - no state should have to tolerate rocket fire into it's civilian areas.  I strongly believe both have rights to the territory in question, and like you the goal is two states.  The question as always - how will we get there?  I also strongly believe that neither side is fairly characterized as "animals" or "barbarians" or "racists" - they are composed of millions of diverse, different people who's views cover a spectrum.  It's easy to forget that and portray them as two-dimensional figures of good and evil.



> > find that the pro-Israeli's offer up their own double standards and discrimination.  I'll give you an example, from some of the most common Palestinian critiques:
> >
> > Pro-Israeli's: Palestinians didn't exist before a certain date (therefore they have no right to the land) They should be expelled to Jordan.The people existed, in that place, regardless of what they were called at the time.
> 
> ...



Residence alone is only part of the standard.  But in this argument - the Anti-Palestinians (I'm choosing to use this term)  are denying Palestinian legitimacy* while using the same standard* to affirm Jewish legitimacy.  This strikes me as a* double standard*.





> > Pro-Israeli's
> 
> 
> 
> ...




IMO - terrorism is directed at civilians and civilian targets.  I think that is one of the definitions of terrorism. Attacks directed against military or government targets are not terrorism in assymetrical warfare.  This argument could go into it's own topic though. 

As far as military objectives - I don't know, but I can pull up examples of Irgun terrorism in the founding of Israel and ask the same question.  I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting with the chief distinction between that and terrorism being the choice of target. 




> > Pro-Israeli's
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Assuming that, I think they will be permitted to stay.  The real question though is will any government be strong enough and stable enough to make sure they are both welcome and safe.

Your question is really too hypothetical because you are asking for a comparison of a conjecture with a reality and we just don't know that.

We do know this though - Israel has been very careful of it's demographics - this has affected family reunification, the ability of residents who marry spouses outside of Israel to bring them back (unless they are Jewish) and the residency system in Jeruselum in which boundaries have been deliberately altered in order to exclude former Arab residents who are now considered outside Jeruselum, and the expansion and granting of new (Jewish only) settlements in contested areas.  Israel doesn't rely on violence for this - it has legal and state mechanism for accomplishing these objectives and I do believe they are objectives.


> > Pro-Palestinians:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, as is the Judenrein one.  Double standards.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



You seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact I have not called Israel apartheid.



> There are two distinct nations with separate governments accepted and recognised by the UN, so there is no comparison with South Africa at all. Yet we still get morons demanding that Israel hands the Palestinians equal rights to the citizens of Israel contrary to the wishes of the P.A.\



See above.



> Where in your link does it show *that ALL Israeli schools are teaching their students to kill arab's* . I looked twice and could not find any mention of such things. Read your link and it tells you that the comparison was not done like for like, but on an uneven field   " The new study examined 94 books from Palestinian school systems in Gaza and the West Bank, and 74 books from the Israeli secular and religious school systems."     Comparing a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system with the majority of the palestinian curriculum



It doesn't.  Neither does it show ALL Palestinian schools are teaching their students to kill Jews.  What's your point here?

How do you know it's the majority of the Palestinian curriculum and a tiny proportion of the Israeli education system?  Do you have data (non-Zionazi biased sources to use references you are familiar with) to show this?



> Then how about the truth easily verified that is in Israeli text books "  Another secular Israeli book stated, “Since its establishment, the State of Israel sought to make peace with its neighbors, the Arab countries, through Israeli-Arab negotiations” but failed because of Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. "



And?  Are you trying to say some of the article (the parts you agree with) are "truth" but he parts you disagree with are not?



> In fact all the things in the palestinian text books happen to be the same propaganda lies posted on here by team paqlestine, so now we know where their source is for the blood libels.



I think there is a lot of propoganda out there and it's not just from the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 27, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is called part of the self-determination process.  There is a competency issue here in the Palestinian Leadership and the electorate.  This is the inability of the Arab-Palestinians to control an orderly transition.
> 
> ...


Ducked the question again, I see.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 Even though the concept of Judenrein is expressly stated in every Palestinian charter


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Wikipedia has an article on it that includes other studies (though none as large as the 2013 study): Textbooks in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_*2000 CMIP report*
An analysis of Israeli textbooks in 2000 by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) found that there was no indoctrination against the Arabs as a nation, nor a negative presentation of Islam. Islam, Arab culture and the Arabs' contribution to human civilization were presented in a positive light. No book called for violence or war, and many books reportedly expressed the yearning for peace between Israel and the Arab countries.[17] However, some textbooks within the Orthodox Jewish community were found to contain prejudices towards Palestinians and the Arabs were often held responsible for Israel's wars.[18]

*2002 and 2004 Firer-Adwan comparisons*
Ruth Firer of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Sami Adwan, a professor of education at Bethlehem University in Bethlehem compared Palestinian and Israeli textbooks in 2002. Of the Palestinian textbooks they found "According to the everyday experience of Palestinians, modern-day Israelis are presented as occupiers. The texts include examples of Israelis killing and imprisoning Palestinians, demolishing their homes, uprooting fruit trees, and confiscating their lands and building settlements on them. The texts also talk about the right of return for the 1948 Palestinian refugees when describing how those refugees live in camps." The Israeli textbooks, are generally presented without the national-political debate."[19] *Their 2004 study of 13 Israeli textbooks and 9 Palestinian textbooks found that "neither side's books tell the story of the conflict from the other's viewpoint, both ignore the other side's suffering and each counts only its only victims."[20]*

*2002 review and 2004 follow-up report by IPCRI*
In 2002, the United States Congress requested the United States Department of State to commission a reputable non-governmental organization (NGO) to conduct *a review of the new Palestinian curriculum*. The Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) was thereby commissioned by the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and the US Consul General in Jerusalem to review the Palestinian Authority's textbooks. *Its report, completed in March 2003, stated the "overall orientation of the curriculum is peaceful despite the harsh and violent realities on the ground. It does not openly incite against Israel and the Jews. It does not openly incite hatred and violence. Religious and political tolerance is emphasized in a good number of textbooks and in multiple contexts."*

However, its June 2004 follow-up report stated that "the practice of "appropriating" sites, areas, localities, geographic regions, etc. inside the territory of the State of Israel as Palestine/Palestinian observed in our previous review, remains a feature of the newly published textbooks (4th and 9th Grade) laying substantive grounds to the contention that the Palestinian Authority did not in fact recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people."

Regarding maps, it noted that "a good number... show Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as one geographic entity (without demarcation lines or differentiated colorings). Historically Palestinian cities (e.g., Akka, Yafa, Haifa, Safad, al-Lid, Ar-Ramla, Beer As-sabe') are included in some maps that lump together the areas controlled by the PA with those inside the State of Israel. No map of the region bears the name of "Israel" in its pre-1967 borders. In addition, Israeli towns with a predominantly Jewish population are not represented on these maps."

The Summary also stated that the curriculum asserts a historically contentious ancient Arab presence in the region, while reflecting an inadequate and imbalanced representation of the Jewish connection: "The Jewish connection to the region, in general, and the Holy Land, in particular, is virtually missing. This lack of reference is perceived as tantamount to a denial of such a connection, although no direct evidence is found for such a denial." ... "terms and passages used to describe some historical events are sometimes offensive in nature and could be construed as reflecting hatred of and discrimination against Jews and Judaism."[21]

According to Roger Avenstrup, writing in The New York Times, the 2003 report from IPCRI concludes* that overall the curriculum is peaceful and does not contain hatred or violence against Israel or the Jews, whilst the 2004 report states that there are 'no signs of promoting hatred toward Israel, Judaism or Zionism, nor toward the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or values.'[22]*

*2002 George Eckert Institute comparison*
The George Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research compared Palestinian and Israeli textbooks in December 2002. According to Jonathan Kriener of the institute, "The crucial difference between both sets of textbooks lies in the overall unanimity of the Palestinian textbooks which conveys a constant underlying message of delegitimization versus the broad spectrum of different approaches in Israel, ranging from Ultra-orthodox school books, to books in which highly controversial political issues are discussed quite openly."_​

Multiple studies come up with the same basic conclusion: both sides tend to present their own historical narrative of events, while minimizing the other's, and neither calls for violence or hatred towards the other.  Both are weak in presenting the other side's narrative.

Looking at that - I think it's important to question the often repeated "meme" that Palestinian textbooks teach hate and violence towards Jews and call it what it is - propoganda designed to demonize.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 I think if you look it will say just that
 Very simple read the section I copied that says just this


 No I am saying as distasteful as you find it the Palestinians are teaching racism and apartheid in their schools. And most of what they teach ends up on boards like this one as propaganda. I gave you examples of these from your own link

Like what for instance, that has been proven to be wrong or false ?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Yes.  And even though the concept of apartheid is reflected in the inequalities of Israel's society, it is not Apartheid.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Intelligence has nothing to do with it - leadership is everything.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Answered in full, just that you are unable to see it being semi literate


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



None of the articles I posted indicate that.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







 How about some examples then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







 And if the leadership is illiterate how does that help the populous ?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Prove that they are illiterate.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Examples of the inequalities that resemble apartheid?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 27, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The  ultimate goal of the Zionist project has always been all of Palestine without the Palestinians. When it comes to things like occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, they are all part of an integrated system used to that end.

None of those are stand alone entities.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 27, 2016)

flacaltenn,  et al,

It is probably that you are much more kind at heart than I.



flacaltenn said:


> I THINK I care about internal Pali problems Rocco. Otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time in this forum. But I'm never certain I understand them or even have access to information that MIGHT help. So POLLS like that one are golden.
> 
> If 80% of the Palis DO want to rebuild the PA -- that would be a great sign of progress. But we all know that any great leader with visions of future peace -- would be dead in a week. So lower expectations are in order.


*(COMMENT)*

I sure hope I'm wrong; but my experience tells me that given the opportunity, the Arab Palestinians will commence hostilities operations against Israel.

*GIVEN THE THREAT*:
∆∆   If the 2009 Naval Blockade is lifted, it is not reasonable to believe that the Arab Palestinian will alter the goals.

•  HAMAS and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) will attempt to import more Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW).   Using more reliable SALW, the regional and internaltional public awareness will be raised by launching more deadly strikes against Israeli soft targets.  
•  The lifting of the block will allow the smuggling SALW into the Gaza Strip  and the blackmarket will increase its activities.  Criminal interests include those of Iran – the arms dealers, small time operators selling intelligence to the Palestinian. 
•  This will allow the additional anti-Aircraft Missiles to enter into the mix.  
•  This  would allow the Islamic Resistance and Islamic Jihad to launch seaborne attacks against the natural gas platforms in the Levant Basin, and even take the platform hostage or destroy them.​∆∆  Opening border crossing points into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank:

•  Just as HAMAS and the PIJ prepared following Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012 --- so it is already starting to re-arm after Operation Protective edge (2014).
•  Iranian officials have already communicated with HAMAS that Tehran is willing to re-arm them.
•  Posting in Hebrew, Hamas warned Israelis to "wait for suicide attacks on every bus, café and street."

"Start counting the number of coffins you'll need," it warned, accompanied by several Hebrew-language videos depicting stabbings and suicide bombings.

"Zionists, wait and see terror attacks, stabbing everywhere. Wait for suicide attacks on every bus, café and street. Wait for the rage and for revenge for Gaza, wait for the flames of the West Bank [Judea and Samaria] inside you."

Another Fatah post promised, "Death will reach you from the south and the norththe KN-103 rocket is on its way [to] you."

The late PLO chairman Yasser Arafat often said one thing in English and another in Arabic. It seems the tradition lives on in the Palestinian Authority unity government.​While I see potential in many cooperative ways, I don't see the the possibility that the Arab Palestinian is motivated to take long-term productive project.   I don't think the Arab Palestinian has a democratic government, or a people that really want peace.

MostRespectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Inequalities in Israel

Social and cultural attitudes:

Racism in Israel on the rise

_The Association for Civil Rights in Israel's (ACRI) report on civil rights in Israel paints a bleak picture: Increasing racism, restriction of personal freedoms and discrimination even within the Knesset walls – and that's just scratching the surface. _

_Published Saturday, the report reveled that Israeli youths are bombarded with stereotypic, racist imagery, and their opinions have developed accordingly: Over two-thirds Israeli teen believe Arabs to be less intelligent, uncultured and violent. Over a third of Israeli teens fear Arabs all together._

_The report becomes even grimmer, citing the ACRI's racism poll, taken in March of 2007, in which 50% of Israelis taking part said they would not live in the same building as Arabs, will not befriend, or let their children befriend Arabs and would not let Arabs into their homes. 

Fifty percent of those polled also said they believed Israel should encourage its Arab citizens to emigrate. 
Racism in Israel is on the rise, said the report: in 2006 there was a 26% increase in racist incidents towards Arabs and the general sense of hatred towards them has doubled. _​
From the same article - inequalities in the allocation of resources:
_Furthermore, in the Second Lebanon War, some 40% of the citizens killed were Israeli-Arabs, *mostly due to a severe lack of shelters*, but still – the rehabilitation and fortification of Arab towns remains, according to the report, ridiculously low._​
And

_The report devotes a special section to the recently approves JNF bill, which allows Jewish National Fund land – which make up 13% of all State owned land –* to be allocated to Jews only*. 

Laws which allow communities to deny Arab Israeli's residence and denying the Arab Israeli's the ability to commemerate their history: Israel Knesset: New Israel laws discriminate against Israeli Arabs, critics say
 One law legalizes the practice of using "admissions committees" in small towns in the Negev and Galilee to reject would-be residents based on their social "suitability," a vague term opponents fear could be used to bar gays, black Israelis, single women, Christians, Muslims and secular families as well as Arabs.

 The second law is aimed at imposing fines on Arab towns, local authorities and state-funded organizations that commemorate Nakba Day, which falls near Israel's Independence Day. Some Arab Israelis refer to the day Israel gained statehood as a nakba, or catastrophe, because it resulted in the displacement of 700,000 Palestinians._​
Discrimination: Arab citizens of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







 I give you the many illegal attacks using illegal weapons that they have been sent letters regarding


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







Exactly as you will find it hard to produce any


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 EVIDENCE AS YOUR WORD IS NOT ENOUGH


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Post #170


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Inequalities in Israel
> 
> Social and cultural attitudes:
> 
> ...







 and none are examples of apartheid, but of overt racism and a means of suppressing violence. Just as America bans certain groups from holding similar festivals.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Inequalities in Israel
> ...



Again - I have not said Israel IS apartheid, which implies a specific legal and governmental structure in place.  What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews.  The other troubling aspect is Israel's weird system of citizenship that enforces a concept of seperateness among it's citizens - rather than all embracing an Israeli identity they are divided into Jews, Arab-Israeli's, and I believe there is a move to create a new category further dividing them by seperating the Arabs into Christian and Muslim.

It seems to me this divisive form of citizenship (which are not all equal) is destabilizing.  Rather than all embracing an Israeli identity, they are embracing sub identities that legislated.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote , SO much to respond to here and so much going off onto tangents not applicable to this thread (though still interesting to talk about).  So I'm just going to respond to various things and if I miss something important that you want me to address -- just give me a heads up.

Let's look at some observable facts concerning the Judenrein argument:

1.  There are no Jews in Gaza.
2.  There are no Jews in Areas A and B.  (near as I can determine).
3.  There are only tiny numbers of Jews in remaining in some ME Arab Muslim nations and most are entirely Judenrein.
4.  There are laws in place in Palestine-controlled Areas A and B which make it illegal to sell land to Jews/Israelis/"the enemy"/"infidels"/non-Muslims/foreigners.  This is punishable by death.  
5.  Statements made by various leaders in the West Bank and (especially) Gaza make it clear that this the desired outcome.
6.  Peace negotiation is denied as long as there are "settlers" in Area C, or any area that the Palestinians consider "theirs".

In contrast:
1.  Arab Muslims make up ~20% of the population of Israel.
2.  There are no laws in Israel which uses language to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or place of orgin 


The idea that Palestine and Gaza (both of which have one of the more extremist ideology held by its population) will suddenly become a bastion of equality and non-discrimination when it comes to incorporating a minority into their midst.  Indeed, every observable fact leads one to believe that an ethnically diverse Palestine and Gaza is opposed by the Palestinians.  While an ethnically diverse Israel is welcomed by Israelis.  Further, the Palestinians require an ethnically diverse Israel while at the same time rejecting an ethnically diverse Palestine.  Double standard.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews.



To my knowledge, untrue.  The JNF bill never passed -- because it was deemed discriminatory.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 27, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.



Yes, but you are making "long-term residence" equivalent to "indigenous".  The pro-Israel posters do not make that equivalence.  They define "indigenous" as the "culture originating in that place pre-invasion and pre-colonization by another culture".  So the pro-Israel argument is consistent.  

The anti-Israel posters claim that invasion and colonization of a culture maintains the condition of indigeneity and that the invading and colonizing culture becomes part of the indigenous group.  But they apply that to Asseryian, Babylonian, Roman and Arab cultures and reject it with Jewish culture (despite the fact that the Jewish people are returning and not invading or colonizing).  That is the double standard.  




> I think the answer is the object is not a neutralization but a spreading of terror and uncertainty in the enemy you are fighting ...



Which is the definition of terrorism, imo.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote , SO much to respond to here and so much going off onto tangents not applicable to this thread (though still interesting to talk about).  So I'm just going to respond to various things and if I miss something important that you want me to address -- just give me a heads up.
> 
> Let's look at some observable facts concerning the Judenrein argument:
> 
> 1.  There are no Jews in Gaza.



By whose choice?



> 2.  There are no Jews in Areas A and B.  (near as I can determine).



By whose choice?



> 3.  There are only tiny numbers of Jews in remaining in some ME Arab Muslim nations and most are entirely Judenrein.



Irrelevant.  We're talking about Palestine/Israel.



> 4.  There are laws in place in Palestine-controlled Areas A and B which make it illegal to sell land to Jews/Israelis/"the enemy"/"infidels"/non-Muslims/foreigners.  This is punishable by death.



What specific laws?



> 5.  Statements made by various leaders in the West Bank and (especially) Gaza make it clear that this the desired outcome.



Statements made by Israeli elected officials wanting to push non-Jews out (paying them to leave).  Desired outcome?



> 6.  Peace negotiation is denied as long as there are "settlers" in Area C, or any area that the Palestinians consider "theirs".



Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.



> In contrast:
> 1.  Arab Muslims make up ~20% of the population of Israel.
> 2.  There are no laws in Israel which uses language to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or place of orgin



There are "laws" and then there are accepted practices.  What is the difference?  There are laws allowing settlements to designate themselves Jewish only. That is discrimmination isn't it?  There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews.  Discrimmination?  There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.  Discrimmination?



> The idea that Palestine and Gaza (both of which have one of the more extremist ideology held by its population) will suddenly become a bastion of equality and non-discrimination when it comes to incorporating a minority into their midst.  Indeed, every observable fact leads one to believe that an ethnically diverse Palestine and Gaza is opposed by the Palestinians.  While an ethnically diverse Israel is welcomed by Israelis.  Further, the Palestinians require an ethnically diverse Israel while at the same time rejecting an ethnically diverse Palestine.  Double standard.



Do they reject an ethnically diverse Palestine?

There is what is outwardly said (Gaza/Hamas).
And there is accepted practice (Israel).

What is the difference in the end?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What I have said is it has apartheid-like attributes and one of the most distinctive is that Arabs can be legally forbidden from living in certain areas and prevented from purchasing land that is only allocated to Jews.
> ...



That is good that it never passed but, there is again the difference between stated law and practice.

Are you saying there are no Jewish-only communities?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 27, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Given that, you would think the argument - the consistent argument - would be both people qualify as indigenous, so therefore if one has greater rights than another (assuming they continue that claim) then it can't be because one is indigenous.
> ...



I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.



And surely you agree that Palestinians are guilty of targeting civilians.  

But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> > There are no Jews in Gaza.
> 
> 
> By whose choice?
> ...



You're kidding, right?  You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A?  You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way?     It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!  They would have been SLAUGHTERED.  And you have the nerve to say it was a choice?  As though there was another option? 
Do you think Hamas and the PA would have accepted those Jews and welcomed them into their little enclaves?  You think it would have turned into a thriving multi-cultural community?  Seriously?  



Coyote said:


> Irrelevant.  We're talking about Palestine/Israel.


Entirely relevant.  Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another.  And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.  



Coyote said:


> Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.



If an Arab Palestinian buys a house does that give him sovereignty over that land?  No?  Then there is no land theft when a Jew buys or moves into a house either.  

Are Arab Palestinians "occupying" Israel?  No?  Then there is no occupation when a Jew buys a house either.  

In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in?  Of course.  Can they also be citizens of another nation?  Of course they can.  One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual.  None.  

The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied.  What does that mean?  It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK!   It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.  

There is no equivalency here.   



Coyote said:


> There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews.  There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.



No there isn't.  Not in Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







Let me see if I have this right

 You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.
 What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different. It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.
The minorities are now embracing  Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens. Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.
> ...


*HA! *Israel calling the Palestinians terrorists is like the coal mine calling the kettle black.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > > There are no Jews in Gaza.
> ...


You're kidding, right? You think there was a possibility of leaving Jews in Gaza or in Area A? You think that was a voluntary decision and that Israel could have gone either way? It was a strategic decision made in order to save Jewish lives!

Are you talking about* settlers or Palestinian citizens?*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.
> ...


Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 Are you saying that only Israel and the Jews operate such actions ?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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





P F Tinmore said:


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



So. according to the 4th Geneva convention, a 3-year-old's throat can be slit?  No wonder you identify with the Palestinians.  You're one of them, through and through.  Yet you will not go to live there, or even visit.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







 And where did you get that from as terrorism is the forcing of one group to submit to another groups religion, politics, culture by use of violence. Which is what the Palestinians are doing


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 So what is it when the majority of the world calls the Palestinians terrorists, including other arab muslim nations ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Who are the settlers and who are the citizens, what differentiates a Jew who owns land in the west bank and an Egyptian left behind when his unit was beaten in a pitched battle. What are the rules for saying who is a Palestinian again that were put in place by the UN ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







EVIDENCE  and in full. As the settlers after 2 years residency become Palestinian citizens, and as they are living on their own lands they are civilians. You have been shown that your interpretation of the Geneva conventions is false and based on lies


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

ForeverYoung436 said:


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


Deflection.

If US troops took their families to Afghanistan, who would be responsible for their safety?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


When a Jew moves to Palestine he takes Israel with him. Nobody else does that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Political name calling. All occupying or colonial powers call their opposition terrorists. It is just part of their shtick.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


I just post what they say. Take it up with them.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Themselves, unless they were afghani's that had been forced to relocate in the US. Then the Geneva conventions would be on their side fully.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Indeed, and the Israelis are responsible for their families when they decide to live in Israel's war zone.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 And when he was forced of his property in 1949 by the palestinians what then. Or are you denying that 1 million Jews were forced of their lands in 1949.   So the land was always part of Israel, and in 1923 was granted to the Jews. How did the arab muslims get to steaol it ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


That was Jordan. Don't forget that the Zionists gave the West Bank to Jordan in a pre war agreement.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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







 Not Israel's war zone at all as Israel has not declared war. It is the Palestinians war zone and they elect to use their civilian areas to fight from


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 LINK as no such treaty exists.


And it was the Palestinians that gained the most by evicting the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


It wasn't a treaty. It was an under the table agreement.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


So the Palestinians created a war zone in their own neighborhoods so that the Israelis could defend themselves when they invade Palestine?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. One important component of terrorism is that it targets civilians in order to spread terror.
> ...



Absolutely.



> But I would argue that attacking even military targets with no anticipation of military gain but only to cause fear would also qualify as terrorism.



I disagree.  Military targets are legitimate targets in a war, and causing fear and disruption is a legitimate military goal.  IMO - the key distinction that makes something terrorism is the target.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > > There are no Jews in Gaza.
> ...



I think in that case there was no option but  not for the reason's you state.  They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them.  They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, they would be Isreali citizens occupying Palestinian land.  That's not a Judenrein policy, that's a product of the conflict and occupation.




Coyote said:


> Irrelevant.  We're talking about Palestine/Israel.





> Entirely relevant.  Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another.  And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.





> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Settlements and settlers are not related to "no Jews" but rather a seperate issue relating to occupation, land theft and Israeli citizens.
> ...


 
That argument is disengenius.

West Bank is under occupation - it's certainly under military law (at least the Palestinian residents are), while the Jewish residents enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law.  It has nothing to do with buying and selling houses and whether it was theft or honest brokering.  Many Palestinians had not registered their land when Israel became a state - they lost it, and the state took it.  And the state did not sell it to non-Jews.

Land theft occurs despite the popular narrative that most of it was legally bought (maybe that too is propoganda):

How is this not theft? (note - Jewish land is not confiscated)
Israeli Land-grabs and Settlements: More Than Merely 'Counterproductive'
Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them - Israel News
Why Israel Is No Better Than Russia
Airbnb profits from Israeli theft of Palestinian Land with Squatter Listings



> In a peace agreement shall all the citizens which reside in the nations hold the nationality of the nation they reside in?  Of course.  Can they also be citizens of another nation?  Of course they can.  One country has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny another country granting citizenship to an individual.  None.



Ideally, I totally agree - but each country has a right to determine who is and isn't a citizen and not all countries allow dual citizenship.



> The PA (let alone Hamas) won't even negotiate a peace treaty unless the "settlements" are emptied.  What does that mean?  It means all the Jewish people have to BE GONE before they will even sit down and TALK!   It means they refuse to negotiate a solution which would consider Jewish people living in Palestine.
> 
> There is no equivalency here.



No.  It means the settlements must be gone.  The settlements have been a long standing cancer in the peace negotiations - they are viewed as illegal occupation of territory that should belong to the Palestinians and they are viewed as illegal.  Most, if not all,  are also Jewish only and their construction and associated Jewish-only roads,  divided farm land, made access to some areas impossible or added hours in distance to go around. The Palestinians suffered attacks from the Jewish settlers, arson, property destruction and even murder (note - this is not to say the Palestinians did not engage in violence also).  The Palestinians also seldom saw settlers brought to justice for this.  Who wants symbols of an apartheid-like occupation to remain?

There is plenty of equivalency.


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > There are laws mandating that certain lands can be sold or rented ONLY to Jews.  There are laws allowing Jews to bring in Jewish spouses but NOT non-Jewish spouses.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Naomi Darom - Israeli News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

_*In the case of a spouse from the territories, reunification becomes almost impossible*. A temporary order from 2003 forbids granting Israeli citizenship or residency to Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip who are partners of Israeli citizens. Men are not allowed to begin the process before the age of 35, and women before age 25.

As a result of a legal precedent from 1999, a law was passed to the effect that a foreign citizen who files a request for family reunification cannot be expelled from the country until a final decision is made on his case. However, according to a more recent amendment, this law does not apply to Palestinians in the territories. This creates a situation in which a partner who lived in Israel before he is granted residency could be subject to expulsion, arrest and even the criminal charges due to illegal residency.

On the other hand, the Interior Ministry requires proof that the couple is living together, and that the center of their life is in Israel. How are they supposed to provide that without being subject to expulsion? Even when the process is successful, Palestinians do not receive permanent residency or an ID card, but rather a military permit to live in Israel, which does not grant social welfare rights or health insurance, or even a driving license._

_“People live here for 20 years without health insurance and without rights,” Lustigman explains._​


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Every single Arab Muslim nation rid itself of its Jews in one way or another.  And there is absolutely no evidence that the Palestinians are going to be more forgiving or more reasonable and plenty of evidence that they will, in fact, be worse.
> 
> [




 Thus explaining your many tens of thousands of postings over the years championing their agenda.


  I have never really understood the Pallywood cult, but their savagery certainly does elicit the sort of loyalty you show them.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Not quite.  It's not what I want - it's what you asked for - examples of enequalities that are similar to apartheid.



> You want only Israel to pass laws making it illegal to bar people from living in an area so that it creates intolerance and violence. When you see the results first hand you will be the first to demand the arab muslims be segregated to protect the rest of society. You turn a blind eye to this being done in your own nation and arab muslim nations and single out the Jews once again.



This has what to do with the topic?  We're not talking about other arab nations, so stop deflecting. Your argument could just as easily be used to support the seperation of black and white people (ie apartheid).  Is this a good thing?  Or an unjust thing?



> What about the US way that segregates its citizens according to ethnicity, culture and nation of origin, Why not compare that to what is happening in Israel, and see why they are no different.



The US has it's problems (as does the UK) - and you keep bringing this up to deflect from the actual topic.  One main difference is that it is ILLEGAL in the US - it still occurs, under the table but it is ILLEGAL.  Do you understand the difference?



> It is your Jew hatred that makes you see Israel as a racist and intolerant nation when in fact it is one of the most tolerant and least racist ones. It accepts all ethnicities and cultures as equals, but you pick up on the small number of Jews that are intolerant as if they are the norm.



No, it's not "Jew hatred", which seems be your pathetic fallback position.  It's actual practices and laws that legitimize discrimination.  You seem to to have a pie-in-the-sky attitude that Israel is somehow an angelic haven.  It's not.  It's better than some, worse than some - like any other country.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/opinion/not-all-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html
Israel's discrimination against its Arab citizens



> The minorities are now embracing  Israel and are clamouring to join the IDF so they can protect their nation from attack. And *the Jews are very grateful and accept them as true Israeli citizens.* Strange how the biggest draft dodgers happen to be the ultra orthodox who are against non Jews in the first place, yet are seen by team Palestine as the real Jews.



That's not totally true.  There have been issues with the Ethiopian Jews and the Indian Jews.  I think the biggest issue is that Israel divides it's citizenship.  Instead of being an Isreali citizen, you are either a Jewish Israeli or Arab Israeli.  It can't help but encourage discrimminatory and divisive attitudes.  One should be Israeli, and all Israeli.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



There is no definition of terrorism that goes like that.

Why Defining Terrorism Matters - The Monkey Cage
_
Academics have their own set of rules for defining terrorism.  Despite intra-field debate, most North American scholars adopt the three-prong definition of terrorism: * it is politically motivated, perpetrated by non-state actors like lone wolves or organizations, and targets civilians rather than the military*.  This means that when a government attacks civilians like in Assad’s Syria, when the perpetrators are motivated by pecuniary gain like on the streets of Detroit, or when they target military assets like the USS Cole, academic purists would distinguish such acts of violence from terrorism.


When it comes to defining terrorism, motives therefore matter.  Mass shootings—like the one in Tucson by Jared Loughner, the one in the Aurora movie theater by James Holmes, the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by Adam Lanza, or the New Orleans Mother’s Day shooting—would be treated as something else.  Some scholars provide no distinction between rampage violence and terrorist acts.  But in reality, there is an important difference—rampage shooters are not politically motivated.


*Another important criterion is target selection.* *Guerilla attacks on military targets are often distinguished from terrorist attacks, which are directed against civilian targets.*  Critics of the Obama administration have hammered him for his hesitancy to label Benghazi as a terrorist attack.  In fact, Benghazi was not a terrorist attack.  It was a guerilla attack against high-level U.S. diplomats, hardly a case of indiscriminate violence.  *When most academics think about a terrorist attacks, we recall 9/11 and the Boston marathon because ordinary citizens were targeted, rather than agents of the state*._​


----------



## Billo_Really (Feb 28, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Thus explaining your many tens of thousands of postings over the years championing their agenda.
> 
> 
> I have never really understood the Pallywood cult, but their savagery certainly does elicit the sort of loyalty you show them.


Um............that wasn't *Coyote*, that was *Shusha* who said it.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 So not valid, and not worth the paper it was written on


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 When did Israel invade Palestine then.

 They have defended against islamonazi attacks, terrorism and violence since 1948, and repelled every invasion that has been tried. recently they have had to oppose hamas fighting from civilian areas and turning gaza into a war zone for propaganda purposes. So yes the Palestinians have turned gaza into a war zone so the Israeli's were forced to defend themselves from attack from Palestine. Israel has not invaded. it has defended against illegal weapons.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> No.  It means the settlements must be gone.  The settlements have been a long standing cancer in the peace negotiations - they are viewed as illegal occupation of territory that should belong to the Palestinians and they are viewed as illegal.  Most, if not all,  are also Jewish only and their construction and associated Jewish-only roads,  divided farm land, made access to some areas impossible or added hours in distance to go around. The Palestinians suffered attacks from the Jewish settlers, arson, property destruction and even murder (note - this is not to say the Palestinians did not engage in violence also).  The Palestinians also seldom saw settlers brought to justice for this.  Who wants symbols of an apartheid-like occupation to remain



And you don't see how THIS is a double standard with what you wrote on the Humanitarian Relocation thread:



Coyote said:


> No, it's not humanitarian if it's against the will of the population.  It's an absolutely inhumane thing to do.




You insist that an absolutely inhumane thing must be done when it comes to the Jewish people living in wanna-be-Palestine.  And yet you go ballistic over the suggestion that hostile Arab Muslim Palestinians be transported to a place where their hostility won't jeopardize lives.  

And yet you tell me you don't have a double standard?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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







 No it is the reason behind the attacks, and I the case of the I/P conflict the arab muslims have been using terrorism to enforce islam on the whole of the M.E. since the ottomans were beaten in 1917. And they have failed every time, even with the amount of propaganda the have tried to use.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.



Meaning ALL Israelis are viable military targets and are "fair game" for the killing.  What a vile belief system you have.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 And you failed to produce any, yet claimed that what you did provide was examples of apartheid even though they are practised by all nations. You need to look closely at what is deemed to be apartheid before making comparisons again


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Israelis are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
> ...





 Thing is ask him to justify his clams and he will ignore you, or deflect away from the request because he cant


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I think in that case there was no option but  not for the reason's you state.  They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them.  They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, ...



Why wouldn't they be Palestinian citizens?  Are you saying that they wouldn't have been granted Palestinian citizenship if they had stayed?  Why not?  

And my entire point was that Israel is bound to protect them and they would have been in grave danger -- that's why they had to be removed.  We agree.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> How is this not theft?
> Israeli Land-grabs and Settlements: More Than Merely 'Counterproductive'
> Palestinian villagers tilled their land so well, Israel is now confiscating it from them - Israel News
> Why Israel Is No Better Than Russia



Here's what I found out.  The area in question is between Jerusalem and Hebron (both ancient Jewish communities).  It was a community founded by Yemeni immigrants and Ultra-Orthodox Jews in 1927.  It was destroyed in the Arab riots of 1929 (along with the Jewish community of Hebron).  It was rebuilt by its community members in 1932 and was abandoned in 1937 during more Arab riots.  It was rebuilt again in 1943 and destroyed again in 1948 during the Arab invasion.  Some of the community members were sent away and the entire remaining population was massacred.  In 1967 one of the surviving family members petitioned to renew the community on that land.  The territory is in Area C, under full Israeli civilian control.  This is territory that is exceedingly unlikely to ever be under Palestinian sovereignty due to its proximity to Israel, its ancient and more recent Jewish history and the same "swiss cheese" effect that Palestinians are constantly complaining about.  In fact, this is one of the communities which is part of the "land swaps" offered in the peace agreements, such as Olmert's in 2008.  The land was also impeccably researched to ensure that none of it was privately owned.  From what I can determine there were no buildings on this land, no permanent residents and no agricultural activity. 

There is a small Arab village adjacent to the area in question.  It has been inhabited continually since well, Jewish times, had a population of 176 in 1933, 210 in 1945 and 896 as of 2007.  It consists of mainly two families.  The village proper is considered to be part of Area B and is under Palestinian civilian control. 

Both Arabs and Jews have been living in small communities on these lands for a long time.  Between these small communities are large areas of land which have been uninhabited.  The question, then, is who has control over these uninhabited lands and who should, eventually have sovereignty over these lands.  In other words, who is stealing from whom?  And how can we tell if there is no assignment of sovereignty and the land is disputed? 

Personally, I think its a stretch to say that ALL the public land between this tiny Arab village and that tiny Arab village is "Palestinian land".  Especially when it is in Area C.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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


There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the *definition of terrorism*.[1][2] Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3]

During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."[4]

As Bruce Hoffman has noted: "terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective,

Definitions of terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and *(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power). *

ICRC service


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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




Don't give me all this legal crap.  Tell me -- do you think it is morally acceptable or justifiable to kill Israeli people because they are Israeli and not "protected persons"?  Including children?  Yes or no?

If you think it is, I stand by my assessment that you have a vile ideology.

If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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


Great link, thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/opinion/rula-jebreal-minority-life-in-israel.html?_r=1


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


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


If you think it is not, then what purpose does it serve to post a comment like "Israelis are not considered "civilians"?​
I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.



I don't understand what this means.  And you didn't answer my question.  Yes or no.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I am just pointing out Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign.
> ...


Israel has a long standing terrorist propaganda campaign against Palestinians. It is a bunch of lies.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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




Palestinians aren't really shooting rockets at Israel and stabbing them in the streets?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


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


"At Israel" is an interesting term considering the is no border there.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



At innocent Israeli citizens, then.  Stop with the games.  Its tiring.  And I suspect its avoidance of answering questions which will reveal your vile ideology.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > How is this not theft?
> ...



Which link is that in reference to?

For example, on the first link I provided, I found an additional article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/w...0-acres-of-west-bank-land-near-bethlehem.html

_JERUSALEM — Israel laid claim on Sunday to nearly *1,000 acres of West Bank land in a Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem *— a step that could herald significant Israeli construction in the area — defying Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement expansion.

Peace Now, an Israeli group that opposes the construction of settlements in the West Bank, said that the action on Sunday might be the largest single appropriation of West Bank land in decades and that it could “dramatically change the reality” in the area.

Palestinians aspire to form a state in the lands that Israel conquered in 1967.

Israeli officials said the political directive to expedite a survey of the status of the land came after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in June while hitchhiking in that area. In July, the Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian who was accused of being the prime mover in the kidnapping and killing of the teenagers. *The timing of the land appropriation suggested that it was meant as a kind of compensation for the settlers and punishment for the Palestinians.*

The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, *has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians,* clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.

But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land *that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif* and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin._​


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

It is never ok to target children and civilians.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think in that case there was no option but  not for the reason's you state.  They were Israeli citizens and Israel would have been bound to protect them.  They wouldn't be Palestinian citizens, ...
> ...



Because there is no state of Palestine.  Once there is - then they should have a choice of citizensthip.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Which link is that in reference to?



The first link is paywalled, so I couldn't check it.  But they all appear to be the same incident.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> _The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, *has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians,* clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.
> 
> But the mayor of the nearby Palestinian town of Surif, Ahmad Lafi, said the land belonged to Palestinian families. He told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa that Israeli Army forces and personnel posted orders early Sunday announcing the seizure of land *that was planted with olive and forest trees in Surif* and the nearby villages of Al-Jaba’a and Wadi Fukin._​



It was not privately owned land.  It was public land.  And it was in Area C -- land under Israeli civil and security control.  

So what makes it "Palestinian land"  (under Palestinian sovereignty -- more properly 'control' since there is no sovereign Palestine yet) and not "Israeli land" (under Israeli sovereignty)?    Why should Palestinians be permitted to build on that land while Israel is not permitted to build on that land?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Which link is that in reference to?
> ...



They are different incidents I think .... ?  One is this (this one must be the paywalled one) Al Walaja – Displacement past and future


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > _The land, which is near the small Jewish settlement of Gvaot in the Etzion bloc south of Jerusalem, *has now officially been declared “state land,” as opposed to land privately owned by Palestinians,* clearing the way for the potential approval of Israeli building plans there.
> ...



What makes it Jewish land?  Why aren't Paletsinians permitted to build there or even live there?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> What makes it Jewish land?



Oslo Accords.  Signed treaty.  I said that already.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > What makes it Jewish land?
> ...



So Palestinians can be barred from building or living there?  And here you were complaining about Jews not being allowed to live in certain areas....


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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



So Jews can be barred from building or living there?  That was YOUR claim -- not mine.  Your claim was that it was Palestinian land and that only Palestinians can build there and if Israel builds there they are STEALING land.  

My claim is that its disputed territory, which both people are trying to utilize or control pending an end-of-conflict agreement, with my additional trump card of Oslo.  

So tell me again, how, exactly, Israel is stealing this land?  She isn't.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


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



I didn't claim they should be barred.  It was Palestinian land and if they are going to build there shouldn't they purchase it or negotiate with the Palestinians who own it?  Otherwise yes, it's stealing.  Not only that but the communities they are building are JEWISH only...so what makes them any better than the Palestinians? [/quote]



> My claim is that its disputed territory, which both people are trying to utilize or control pending an end-of-conflict agreement, with my additional trump card of Oslo.
> 
> So tell me again, how, exactly, Israel is stealing this land?  She isn't.



The trump card of Oslo doesn't permit them to take other people's farms.

When Israel confiscates land for it's barrier wall...is it Jewish farmland or Palestinian farmland?

*Why can't Palestinians or Arab Israeli's build on that land?*


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


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





> My claim is that its disputed territory, which both people are trying to utilize or control pending an end-of-conflict agreement, with my additional trump card of Oslo.
> 
> So tell me again, how, exactly, Israel is stealing this land?  She isn't.





> The trump card of Oslo doesn't permit them to take other people's farms.
> 
> When Israel confiscates land for it's barrier wall...is it Jewish farmland or Palestinian farmland?
> 
> *Why can't Palestinians or Arab Israeli's build on that land?*


Any treaty that violates the rights of people is void.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote and P F Tinmore .  *Its. not. privately. owned. land. * So what makes it "Palestinian land".  Your claim, your burden of proof.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 28, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Not only that but the communities they are building are JEWISH only...so what makes them any better than the Palestinians?



To my knowledge there are no laws which state that only Jews can live in those communities.  If you have a law which says differently, please post it.


----------



## Challenger (Feb 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Not only that but the communities they are building are JEWISH only...so what makes them any better than the Palestinians?
> ...



Admissions Committee Law 2011

http://www.knesset.gov.il/Laws/Data/law/2286/2286.pdf


----------



## Shusha (Feb 29, 2016)

Challenger said:


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




The text of the Admissions Committee Law 2011 in English.  

In part:

(_C) The admissions committee will not refuse to accept a candidate for reasons of race, religion, gender, nationality, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political-party opinion or affiliation._

So no, there is no law which states that only Jews can live in those communities.  That said, the law also states:

_The candidate is not suitable for the social life in the community; a decision by the admissions committee to refuse to accept a candidate due to this consideration will be based on a professional opinion by someone who is expert in identifying such suitability; (5) The candidate‟s lack of compatibility with the social-cultural fabric of the community town, when there is reason to assume that this would harm this fabric;_

which can be used by the admissions committee to reject an applicant for vague reasons, and can, and does, result in discrimination including a reluctance to apply to live in these communities.  In some cases, such a rejection has been overturned by those who pursue the case in court.  

So yes, discrimination most surely exists.  But the law itself does not permit only Jews to live in those communities.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote and P F Tinmore .  *Its. not. privately. owned. land. * So what makes it "Palestinian land".  Your claim, your burden of proof.



Is it or isn't it? 

Israeli land and property laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Coyote (Feb 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


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



The law does, without explicitely stating it.  Instead of saying they can not discrimminate on the basis of x y z....they allow them a legal loophole in the way they choose to word it.  

The reality, on the ground, is the majority of those new settlements go to Jews and the communities are Jewish only.  They're forcing Bedouins out of their "illegal" villages (substandard housing) in order to build new and better housing and a new community but is it for Beduoins?  Can they live there?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 29, 2016)

Coyote  What makes it "Palestinian land"?

And the law explicitly states that rejection of admission to a community can not be based on race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political opinion or affiliation.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote and P F Tinmore .  *Its. not. privately. owned. land. * So what makes it "Palestinian land".  Your claim, your burden of proof.
> ...



I've had a chance to do some more research this morning.  And everything I have found thus far indicates what I had originally posted -- which is that there is no private ownership of land in this territory and that Israel thoroughly researched this ahead of time.  If you have specific information to the contrary (family name, legal claim to title, anything) you should show it.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


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



The article I quoted stated that Israel has confiscated land through "absentee landowner" laws - which indicates there are owners.

You're asking me to provide info to the contrary but you aren't exactly showing info either


----------



## Coyote (Feb 29, 2016)

*What is the Absentee Property Law?*
_

The Absentee Property Law (Absentee Property Law)was enacted by the Knesset in 1950. The provisions of the Law were made effective retroactively, applying from November 30, 1947 (the day after the UN vote establishing the State of Israel) and remaining in effect until the state of emergency in Israel expires (that state of emergency remains in effect until the present day). *Under the Absentee Property Law, any individual owning property in Israel who has been present in “enemy territory”, or is a citizen of an enemy state, is deemed an “absentee.” Properties whose owners are deemed “absentees” automatically become “absentee properties.” Title of those properties is granted to the Custodian of Absentee Property who, under law, has the authority to transfer said titles to these lands to Israel’s Development Authority – a body that is part of the Israel Land Authority.*



The Absentee Property Law was the major vehicle through which Israel *took control of property owned by Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel in the war in 1948. Between 1948 and 1967, the Absentee Property Law enabled the newly-born state of Israel to legally place such property at the disposal of the Israeli public and, in this manner, millions of dunams of privately-owned Palestinian lands were effectively “nationalized” and re-purposed for the construction of development towns, kibbutzim and moshavim inside the Green Line. *

Under the Absentee Property Law, “enemy territory” includes not only Arab states that took part in the 1948 war against Israel, *but also the West Bank.* This includes East Jerusalem, which between 1949 and 1967 was an integral part of the West Bank, all of which were under the control of Jordan (an “enemy state”). When Israel annexed Jordanian East Jerusalem and 27 surrounding villages (around 6.5 sq. kms.) in July 1967, shortly after the Six-Day War, *the Absentee Property Law automatically became applicable vis-à-vis Palestinian-owned properties in East Jerusalem.* Virtually all of the residents of East Jerusalem at the time were Jordanian citizens. Moreover, much of the land in East Jerusalem was owned, in whole or in part, by the residents of Ramallah, Bethlehem, and other places in the West Bank. Consequently, *rigorous application of the Absentee Property Law would have undermined the validity of much of the property rights in the Palestinian sector of East Jerusalem.*



In 1968, Israel began an effort to enforce the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem. At that time, a major international controversy ensued. As a result, then-Attorney General Meir Shamgar (later the Chief Justice of the Israeli High Court of Justice), issued a binding legal opinion whereby properties in East Jerusalem belonging West Bank residents would not be declared an absentee property, provided he or she had an agent or relation within the city who managed the property on his or her behalf. In effect Shamgar ruled that the Absentee Property Law would not be applied systematically to properties in East Jerusalem that were owned by residents of the West Bank. Shamgar’s guidelines remained secret, becoming public knowledge only decades later, when they were no longer in effect.



In 1977, Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister of Israel. In December of that same year, the Shamgar ruling was overturned by Begin’s government and replaced by another secret governmental decision – this time to stipulating that there was no restriction on the applicability of the Absentee Property Law with respect to East Jerusalem. Since that time, the use of the Absentee Property Law in East Jerusalem has almost invariably been cloaked in secrecy. Nonetheless, based on empirical data it appears that from 1977 through the present day, the law has never been systematically enforced in East Jerusalem and, with only one exception, has not been exploited as a major tool of Israeli policy in East Jerusalem. That exception, however, is a serious and illuminating one, involving the extremely sensitive neighborhoods of the Old City’s Muslim Quarter and Silwan. _


----------



## Coyote (Feb 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote  What makes it "Palestinian land"?
> 
> And the law explicitly states that rejection of admission to a community can not be based on race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, gender, disability, personal status, age, parenthood, sexual orientation, country of origin, political opinion or affiliation.




Yet it has this loophole: _The candidate is not suitable for the social life in the community_

that makes a parody out of the law.


----------



## Shusha (Feb 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The article I quoted stated that Israel has confiscated land through "absentee landowner" laws - which indicates there are owners.
> 
> You're asking me to provide info to the contrary but you aren't exactly showing info either



You claim that this particular slice of land is "Palestinian land".  What evidence are you using to support your claim?  

You have since made a new claim that it is actually not just "Palestinian land" but privately owned "Palestinian" land.  What evidence are you using to support your claim?  You have referenced a particular law -- so please show how it applies specifically to this case. 

Here are portions of some of the articles I've been reading:

_"The process of final declaration as proscribed by the authorities is in place as an extra protection of private property rights," it said. "As such, in the case where the sovereign power wants to advance building plans in an area where the land registry record is not complete it has to do an in-depth survey of the land by law, to ensure 1000% that the land is not privately owned."

"After decades of due process the land was surveyed and considered wasteland/ownerless (see above more info on issue of ownerless), yet even so a 45 day window of appeal is available by law,"..._



Under Israeli military rules, Palestinian landowners can object to the decision within 45 days, but such objections cannot succeed unless Palestinians can prove individual land ownership.



_Broadly, land in Judea and Samaria falls into one of three legal categories: state land, private land, and land whose status is to be determined. The area in question had the status of territory whose status is to be determined.  However, an investigation was required before the change of status to state land could be announced: That lengthy investigation, completed this summer, determined its status.  No private Arab ownership was uncovered. Now there will be a window of opportunity for those who might wish to contest this finding.  And as we are looking at a bureaucratic process, it will be some time before any actual building is done...._
_
Only 507 housing units were approved for construction by Netanyahu’s government in the first six months of 2014, a 71.9 percent decrease from the same period in 2013, with about one-third of those being built inside the major blocks that it is understood Israel will keep in any final status agreement. For a population of over 300,000 Israelis living in the West Bank, that pace of construction does not even allow for natural population growth, much less rapid expansion....

At the end of the day, the annexation is a symbolic move. Those lands are going to remain Israel’s no matter what: They are populated by some 20,000 Israelis, adjacent to the pre-1967 border, and were recognized in previous negotiations as part of the areas Israel would keep and for which it would swap Israeli land elsewhere.



The COGAT unit, no friend of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, astonishingly yet correctly ruled after an extensive investigation that* “none of the land is privately owned Palestinian land.”*

Already self-proclaimed “human rights” NGOs are teaming up with local Palestinian leaders to claim that the land really belongs to nearby Palestinian communities–despite the fact that none of the communities possesses a deed to the property...._



There are also these neat little booklets about the villages in the area of Gush Etzion.  Including this one about Surif, a village in Area B (under PA civil authority).  

And, once again, the area in question is allocated to Area C -- under full Israeli civil and security control.


*
*
So, what makes it "Palestinian land"?


----------



## Shusha (Feb 29, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Yet it has this loophole: _The candidate is not suitable for the social life in the community _that makes a parody out of the law.




The "loophole" does not change the law.  And rejections by community associations have, in fact, been challenged and won.  And there are, in fact, Israeli Arabs living in at least some of these communities.  

And the original question was whether or not a law existed which specifically discriminated against non-Jews.  

I'm not denying there is not social discrimination in Israel.  There most certainly is. Jew-stabbings don't help the situation any.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 2, 2016)

Looks like Shusha nailed it. 

But just for fun. What was Israel supposed to do, leave valuable land vacant in preference to an unknown owner who can't be located, and refuses to step forward or was declared persona non grata. 

This is the nature of war, a war the Arab league started. They lost, what they lost included land. 

So whats your point ? 

Also I think its reasonable to retract any accusations of apartheid. 

Apartheid is an institution enacted through no fault of those being subjugated to it. Restrictions like what the Arab Muslims of Israel are under exist entirely because of the Arab Muslims own actions. They required the restrictions to be enacted against them and only they can act to lift those restrictions by putting an end to the violence aggression towards the Israeli people.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 2, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> But just for fun. What was Israel supposed to do, leave valuable land vacant ...



Well, and what would one expect a sovereign Palestine to do with vacant land -- just let people squat on it?


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 3, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOLread more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion


Did our honorable montelatici actually pay to read that drivel?! hehe


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 4, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Israeli Jews are starting to see the light. It's as if I wrote the article. LOLread more: Call apartheid in Israel by its name - Opinion
> ...



Monty only reads drivel 

he's another that would falsely equate the SA policy of apartheid and the Israeli need to enforce restrictions on a violent population.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 So how does this defeat the argument that the Palestinians are proven to be terrorists, and have been placed on the list by many nations. Even arab muslim nations have stated they are terrorists.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 See deflection because you cant answer the argument


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 And who are you to say Israel has a terrorist propaganda campaign, what authority do you have other than that you have given yourself.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 SAYS WHO as you aren't authorised to give such a decision


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 So that means that Palestine does not have a border either, so they will have to negotiate one.

 This still means that the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by firing illegal weapons from their controlled land into Israel's controlled land. This is contrary to the UN charter and they are guilty of unprecedented attacks on another sovereign nation of the UN.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.



What you deem to be "Palestine" has TWO peoples who each want self-determination.  They most certainly do need to negotiate borders between themselves.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


It is obvious. Israel cries terrorist even when troops or other non protected people are attacked. Israel cannot go through a day without playing a deck of terrorist cards. Like they are selling something.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine has borders. They don't need to negotiate anything.
> ...


Indeed, the natives and the colonists.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



LMAO go for it, define those borders LOL 

The simple truth is the only real name we can call the phony charge of apartheid in Israel is bullshit. 

The restrictions placed on the Arab Muslim population in Israel is are there BECAUSE of the outragiously violent behavior of the Arab Muslims. 

Apartheid is instead, not a result of the victims behavior.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You have reversed which is which.  But even if we accept that both are colonists (a stretch, but I'll go with it) -- it still leaves us the problem that there are, in point of fact, TWO peoples.  Denying one or the other serves no purpose in solving the problem.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


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


Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.



There are two groups who want to create two (actually three) new states.  They need to negotiate a treaty.  And um, Oslo.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


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


There were the Palestinians who normally lived there and the *self proclaimed* colonists from Europe.

Look it up. The documents are available on the net.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.
> ...


The Palestinians are not asking to create a state.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Nonsense, palestine was never "incepted" ;--) 

Ergo than can be no occupation. 

and the only name for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit. Unless that is you are referring to the Arab Muslim exclusion of Judaic people in areas under Arab Muslim influence


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Nonsense, before the Mandate could be assigned to Palestine there had to be a Palestine.


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Palestine has had international borders since its inception. There has never been any treaty to change them.


For that contention to hold water we need to establish who was that sultan, pasha, emir, shakh, effendi, president, prime-minister of that "state of palestine" with "international borders", of course. So, names, please. And don't play dumb tricks - we're tired of your clowning.


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> There were the Palestinians who normally lived there and the *self proclaimed* colonists from Europe.


All people living in that area were regarded as “palestinians” without any ethnic connotations. Funny, only jews were palestinians, arabs preferred to be "just arabs".  And don't tell us tales that, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra were arab settlers from the hood, who brought their violins with them.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 4, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Yikes. 

I don't normally respond to your posts for a reason but this one is just too funny not to respond to. 

Before the mandate there were three provinces of Ottoman Southern Syria.

Gaza, Acre and Tripoli 







Prior to that the area was referred to as 

In Byzantine Times it was just Syria 






The term palaestina only shows up rarely in history. 

The mandate for palestine woudl have been more accurately termed the mandate for southern syria.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 4, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > There are two groups who want to create two (actually three) new states.  They need to negotiate a treaty.  And um, Oslo.
> ...


At last! An admission, albeit an indirect one, that, all that talk about two states is a palisimian bullshitting only. They're quite content in their current state. Nations don't behave that way, but palistanians have never been one, anyway. As Larry Miller put it: _So for the sake of honesty, let’s not use the word ‘Palestinian’ any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they’re being taped. Instead, let’s call them what they are: ‘Other Arabs Who Can’t Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death.’ I know that’s a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: ‘Adjacent Jew-Haters.’ Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don’t. They could’ve had their own country. Anytime in the last thirty years, especially several years ago at Camp David. But If you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks. And Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living. That’s no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course that’s where the real fun is — but mostly they want Israel._


----------



## Shusha (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians are not asking to create a state.



Well, good. They won't be sad when they don't get one, then.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Have they, then you will have no problem producing the link that shows these borders of the nation of Palestine. This means the LoN mandate borders do not count as they clearly say that it is for the mandate and not the nation. The only one I can find is the one from 1988 that says from the river to the sea and from north to south without defining which river, which sea and how far north or south they are prepared to go.


 The Borders of Israel are not set in stone until the arab muslims agree to meet and negotiate mutual borders, 2 down so far with 2 or 3 to go......................


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 If the attacks take place outside of Palestinian controlled land then they are terrorist attacks, you really need to get a remedial course in English under your belt as you are losing your marbles with your claims. It is not Israel claiming that the attacks are terrorism, but A.I, UK, Europe and the US


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 The natives being the Jews and the colonists being the muslims. As rat boy admitted on another thread the colonists came after the fall of the Roman empire.   The Jews were invited to migrate and close settle by the lands sovereign rulers.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








  But no nation or state or country of Palestine is shown on any of those maps. All you can see is the area of the map that is called Palestine, just as areas in the US are called the badlands, death valley and the dust bowl. They have no borders and have never been a nation.


 And if you look your video shows Jordan as part of Palestine as is parts of Syria, Saudi and Egypt. Do you want to tell them they are squatting on Palestinian land illegally ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


You read too much Israeli propaganda.

The Mandate was not a place. It was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land or borders of its own.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,* to entrust to a Mandatory *selected by the said Powers *the administration of the territory of Palestine,*

Text of the British Mandate for Palestine | Jewish Virtual Library​


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

You bring this up periodically, as it it is some revelation.  A disreputable attempt to shift the credibility of someone.  (You and everyone esle here knows what the intended meaning was.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(REFERENCE)
*
Palestine Order in Council  10 August 1922
PART I.




PRELIMINARY.

Title. 1. This Order may be cited as "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.​As of mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the Mandate Authority _("Legal Meaning of the Termination of the Mandate")_ was lifted and the Successor Government was designated (27 February 1948) as the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) _(After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine.)_.

*(COMMENT)*

It appears to me that your are just trying to twist the words _(and the intent)_ by using the a technique of misdirection.   It is not necessary that you do this.  As long as everyone understands that Palestine was a legal entity but it is not a sovereign state. That Palestine was once a territory administered under mandate _(AKA: former Mandate Territory)_.

Actually, today, the State of Palestine has no borders at all.  

The West Bank is encapsulated by the Israeli-Jordanian Treaty boundary; and the Gaza Strip is encapsulated by the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty boundary.   Neither Treaty hold any prejudice _(without any loss or waiver of rights, afforded any people)_ towards the people called Palestinians.  The Palestinians cannot use the boundary of the former _(territory to which the)_ Mandate _(applied)_.  

The "Blue Line" has no bearing on today's Palestinians.  S/RES/1701 (2006) reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949.  

The "Green Line" was dissolved by Treaties.  The UN Security Council Resolution 1559:  End of Syrian Occupation of Lebanon, Disarmament of Militias, 2 September 2004, resolved that occupation.
The UN Security Council Resolution 1680:  Delineation of Syrian-Lebanese Border, Disarmament of Hezbollah and other Militias, 17 May 2006 was, for the time being, resolved.

There has been all sorts of Diplomatic and political activity --- relative to the Borders to the countries adjacent to the Jewish State of Israel; but "nothing" involving the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> You bring this up periodically, as it it is some revelation.  A disreputable attempt to shift the credibility of someone.  (You and everyone esle here knows what the intended meaning was.
> 
> ...


Where is the part where the Palestinians ceded land?


----------



## docmauser1 (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Where is the part where the Palestinians ceded land?


Err, they haven't had any.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That is an interesting question...   A very interesting question!



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?  

I say that the Palestinians NEVER had effective control or sovereign control of any territory prior to 1988.  And even then, it is a question as to whether they have sovereign control over anything now.  They (the Palestinians) keep claiming that they are occupied territory.  By definition, if the territory is occupied, then they do not effectively control and territory or have sovereignty over ayn land.

*ANSWER:*  Never!  The Palestinians never had any territory.  The Arab Palestinians had no authority or dominion over any territory.

The Jewish State of Israel exercised self-determination, having completed the UN Recommended Steps Preparatory to Independence, and in coordination with the successor government (UNPC) made the appropriate declaration by the required provisional government.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That is an interesting question...   A very interesting question!
> 
> ...


Just when did the Palestinians every have the effective control or sovereignty over any territory, that they had the ability to change the status of the land?

Are you still pimping Israeli propaganda? You know that effective control is not the criterion for rights.

5. Immediate steps shall be taken,* in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, *to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the * national unity and the territorial integrity* of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Not at all surprising. Your frantic cutting and pasting is an unworkable exercise. 

The response to your smoke screen is addressed with the simple declarative in Rocco's comment above following his bolded *ANSWER:*


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 Again you confuse the Mandate of Palestine with the British mandate, Try reading about the LoN treaty that put in place the British mandate. The British mandate is what was the temporarily appointed administration, not the actual mandate of palestine itself. And if you read the LoN mandate of Palestine it delineates the borders of the two palestines for the purpose of International relations.

 So according to the highest authority extant in 1917 till the UN was formed the mandate of Palestine was a physical place administered by the British mandatory government who issued currency, postage stamps, passports and citizenship.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Help me out here.  When did *General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *come into force as International Law?

Help me out here.  When did anything in the Middle East become a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT).



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(REFERENCE)*

*Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization)*

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The Special Committee annually reviews the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation. It also hears statements from NSGTs representatives, dispatches visiting missions, and organizes seminars on the political, social and economic situation in the Territories. Further, the Special Committee annually makes recommendations concerning the dissemination of information to mobilize public opinion in support of the decolonization process, and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.​



*(COMMENT)*

There is no NSGT anywhere in the Middle East.  Not only is the GA/RES/1514 (XV) NOT LAW, but even if it was, there is no applicable territory (relative to the Palestinians) for which this non-binding Resolution applies.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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





They never had the gonads to take the small step required to take control of any territory, they just relied on others to govern them and pay the way for them.


 Your cut and paste is deflection and irrelevance as it was not a colony in 1960 but part of Jordan and Egypt by mutual acceptance. Want to try again with another irrelevant and off topic treaty that has no legal standing ?


 You make it sound like the Palestinians have been stopped from declaring determination and a state when  the reality is they are afraid to do so as it will mean the loss of $1.1 billion in UN aid


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 They could not cede any land as they had none to cede legally, the nation of Palestine did not exist until 1988 and then in name only


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Help me out here.  When did *General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 *come into force as International Law?
> 
> ...


This is not a comprehensive list of NSGTs. Tibet, Kashmir, Palestine, etc are not listed.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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


Wow! That was an embarrassing admission that you're totally rebuttal-challenged.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK if you know better than the UN on the definition, then where is the list.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

I think you are misinformed:

•  Autonomous Regions of People's Republic of China: Guangxi, Nei Mongol, Ningxia, Xinjiang Uygur, *Xizang (Tibet) *

•  Kashmir is a militarized territorial dispute.



•  Palestine is a disputed partition; and conflict initiated by the Arab League in 1948.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK if you know better than the UN on the definition, then where is the list.
> 
> ...


Whose dispute?
Whose partition?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 5, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OK, I know you haven't heard much about this region conflict.



P F Tinmore said:


> Whose dispute?
> Whose partition?


*(ANSWER)*

•  Whose dispute:  In February 1948 the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration:


That before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child. determination of every Arab in Palestine is to oppose in every way the partition of that country.​
•  Whose partition:  In February 1948 the Arab Higher Committee Delegation declared the following:


The Arabs of Palestine will never recognize the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm pretty sure its only plagiarism if I don't tell you Rocco that I stole your last and posted a snipet on another forum. 

And thank you for another very informative post. I cache much of the information you post ;--) 

And the appropriate term for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 5, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> OK, I know you haven't heard much about this region conflict.
> 
> ...


The Palestinians had every right to reject the Partition of their country. And they did stop the plan. It was never implemented.

Neither the Mandate nor resolution 181 changed Palestine's legal status. It was still a non self governing territory. A legal entity as the British described it.


----------



## Shusha (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians had every right to reject the Partition of their country.



By saying that you are arguing against the rights of peoples to self-determination.  You are saying that people have the right to reject the self-determination of another group.  Is that really what you want to argue?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 6, 2016)

"their country" 







and the proper name for the accusation of apartheid in Israel is bullshit.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Maybe because they are not NSGT's outside of your wild imagination.

 But once again you ignore the most pertinent fact that you are trying once again to use UN resolutions as International law, and then to use them retrospectively.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 The indigenous residents of course, and the partition was the one imposed by the sovereign rulers in 1920 to placate the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 When was it declared their country then as it never existed under the Ottomans as a country and the LoN never declared it a country under their sovereign rule.

It had no legal status to change other than to become two entities' a Jewish Palestine and an arab Palestine. After 1948 it ceased to be a NSGT as it became ruled by the people who lived there. In 1967 the people who lived in arab Palestine instigated a war and were beaten back so the land became occupied, but still governed by the people who lived there. Then in 1970 the people decided to make a violent coup and steal the land for themselves, they failed and the governing body cast them adrift. In 1988 the people declared independence so becoming a self governing occupied territory.


 You really need to stop reading islamonazi and neo Marxist propaganda rubbish.   Just look at the undisputed facts and not the fantasy you have built


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This may have been partially true in 1948; but it certainly does not answer the two questions you posed.



P F Tinmore said:


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



*(COMMENT)*

You asked "whose dispute" and "whose partition."  And i answered both question in the reality of 1948.  And it has not changed much since then.

As far as "implementation goes," you are not being honest.  In the May 1948 UN Official Press Release, from the Headquarters and the Successor Government of Palestine, says something ENTIRELY different.  The question is:  are you challenging what was said?  "The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."




 
*EXCERPT from UN DOCUMENT DATABASE UNISPAL*​
As far as the recommendations of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), you simply cannot deny the existence of something that actually happened.  You cannot deny the Resolution any more than you can deny the Sunrise.  It is a matter of record.  You may deny reality, as a way to avoid the psychologically uncomfortable truth that both Israel and the 1988 Palestine cited UN General Assembly Resolution 181(II) in their documentation announcing independence.  But that does not change the weather or roll back the clock.



 
*LETTER from the Permanent Palestinian Observer March 1999*​
I would like you to take note that the Palestinian Permanent Observer made note that:

*For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable.* The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Israel must comply with United Nations resolutions. It has no power to unilaterally annul any of those resolutions, particularly such a historic resolution as 181 (II). *Israel's claim that the resolution is "null and void" is illegal, and it is also inadmissible given the history of the matter.*​
It is also important to note that, even today, the Palestine Liberation Organization - Negotiation Affairs Department (PLO-NAD) still makes mention of the reality:


•   In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly recommended the partitioning of Palestine, against the wishes of the majority of our inhabitants. The Partition Plan allocated 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state. At the time, the Jewish population living in Palestine represented only one third of the total population and owned less than seven percent of the land.

•   Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​ You cannot use something that did not exist as evidence to in the territorial dispute.  Now it is possible to claim that because of the Arab League aggressive military intervention to prevent implementation, the entire accomplishment of the resolution (non-binding)...   You can argue that the "neighboring Arab armies" which attempted to undermine the UN Recommendations, had an adverse impact and changed the optimum outcome.  But you cannot claim that Israel did not attempt to implement the 1947 Partition Recommendation; that would be denialism.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This may have been partially true in 1948; but it certainly does not answer the two questions you posed.
> 
> ...


In this regard, the Plan provided that: “States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to there-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem”.* As the United Nations Partition Plan was never implemented,*...

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​---------------------
*GARes181 never went to the Security Council for approval,* therefore, it remained as a 'recommendation'.

The reason why the *General Assembly Resolution 181 never went to the Security Council *for consideration was because it implied that if it were to be approved by the Security Council, then it would require military force to implement it, considering the Zionist position at that time.

UN Resolution 181 - 1948​------------------------
*Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications *that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document* was never consummated.* Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181‟s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly‟s recommendation.

Some thought the Partition plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, *Resolution 181 had become a moot issue...*

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/10/resolution-181.pdf​-----------------------


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


It is true that the the UN General Assembly does not make law. They do, however, reference existing international law, i.e. laws that already existed prior to the resolution.

3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


In a broader international legal context, the “Nationality law... showed that the *Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State,* though provisionally under guardianship”.

Indeed, Palestinian nationality, like any other nationality, constituted the legal bond which connected individuals to collectively form a people as an element of a state.

In conclusion, Palestinian nationality was first founded on 6 August 1924, “and treaty nationality in Palestine runs from that date”. The Treaty of Lausanne had transformed the de facto status of, and practice relating to, Palestinian nationality into de jure existence from an international law angle.

https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​
What do you have that says they are not?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yeah, I've seen this all before.

I'll make a couple of points and then let is go.



P F Tinmore said:


> In this regard, the Plan provided that: “States whose nationals have in the past enjoyed in Palestine the privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection, as formerly enjoyed by capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, are invited to renounce any right pertaining to them to there-establishment of such privileges and immunities in the proposed Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem”.* As the United Nations Partition Plan was never implemented,*...
> 
> https://doc.rero.ch/record/9065/files/these.pdf​


​*(COMMENT)*

The "International Law Foundation is NOT a court.  "It is a 21st Century creation --- a "nongovernmental organization (NGO) that assists post-conflict and transitional countries in establishing public defender systems that provide effective, quality criminal defense services for the poor."

Although it sounds very official, it has no legal standing what so ever. 



P F Tinmore said:


> *GARes181 never went to the Security Council for approval,* therefore, it remained as a 'recommendation'.​


​*(COMMENT)*

I don't think I claimed that it was, or ever needed, UN Security Council Approval.  However, that does not change the question to the argument :  Did it exist?  AND it does not change the fact that the Jewish Agency and the Provisional Government, still followed the the official "RESOLUTION ADOPTED ON THE REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON 'THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION."



P F Tinmore said:


> The reason why the *General Assembly Resolution 181 never went to the Security Council *for consideration was because it implied that if it were to be approved by the Security Council, then it would require military force to implement it, considering the Zionist position at that time.
> 
> UN Resolution 181 - 1948



*(COMMENT)*

This is just so wrong on so may levels.  But needless to say, the Successor Government (the UN Palestine Commission) operated on the adopted set of rules.

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council May consider necessary to issue. The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly,shall become immèdiately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council. The Commission shall render periodic monthly progress reports, or more frequently if desirable, ta the Security Council.

15. The Commission shaIl make its final report ta the next regular session of the General Assembly and to the Security Council simultaneously.​
As long as the Provisional Israeli Government followed and declared independence according to the Recommended and Adopted Steps Preparatory to Independence, it is what it is.  In the absence of guidance to the contrary --- from the Security Council to the Successor Government (UNPC) --- the Declaration of Independence followed the UN Guidance Recommended by the General Assembly.  No where in the Resolution does the Resolution have to go to the security Council for approval.  It says:

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.​
*


P F Tinmore said:



			Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications
		
Click to expand...

*


P F Tinmore said:


> that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document* was never consummated.* Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181‟s validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly‟s recommendation.
> 
> Some thought the Partition plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, *Resolution 181 had become a moot issue...*


*(COMMENT)*

A recommendation does not need to be "consummated."  I've heard you say that before, but that that is nowhere in the Charter.  No General Assembly recommendation by Resolution needs anything more.  Just as it is if you give someone advise or a recommendation.  It doesn't need any other approval. 

The pro-Palestinians have no coherent voice with one platform or political position.  And like may issues, this understanding of the importance of GA/RES/181(II) is no exception.  Arab Palestinians have this tendency to shift or change positions whenever and where ever it best suits them.  Just as I have shown here where the official Palestinian position is one thing, you of course, have to find some NGO that states something else.  It is what it is.  Just remember:

You can't alter the history that the Arab Higher Committee rejected the Resolution and then threaten to use force to achieve what they could not achieve in diplomacy.
You cannot roll back the clock and reword either:

•  The 1948 Declaration of Israeli Independence using the recommendation of Resolution 181(II).
•  The 1988 Declaration of Independence used by the PLO an stating:

∆∆  Despite the historical injustice inflicted on the Palestinian Arab people resulting in their dispersion and depriving them of their right to self-determination, following upon UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947), which partitioned Palestine into two states, one Arab, one Jewish, yet it is this Resolution that still provides those conditions of international legitimacy that ensure the right of the Palestinian Arab people to sovereignty.​•  You cannot erase Palestinian Position in 1999 that "The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II)."​Now, there is no doubt that the complete intent of the Resolution was not achieved.  But that is not for the lack of the Israeli's trying.  The failure to achieve all the desired outcomes of the Resolution was a direct result Arab League trying (and failing) to alter the right of the Israelis to implement the right of self-determination _(which did not then --- and --- does not now require Security Council approval)_.  All people, not just the Arab Palestinians ---  BUT --- all people have the right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, I've seen this all before.
> 
> ...


The 1948 Declaration of Israeli Independence using the recommendation of Resolution 181(II).​
Big fat lie. Israel violated almost every part of resolution 181 even before its declaration.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yeah, I've seen this all before.
> 
> ...


Requests that

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​
The UNPC was not mentioned.

Where was the UNPC when they were to protect the people and territory of Palestine?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 So this means that Palestine doesn't have a right to exist then either, does it.


 As you have been shown by official UN documents 181 was implemented as in was and either or recommendation, which means that it only took one party to agree and the recommendation was fulfilled





 Your first link is not valid as it is islamonazi propaganda

 Your second link is also islamonazi propaganda

 Link three has this to say

 In the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement. There is no foundation for such a notion. 


 Care to answer the question ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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


Palestine already existed.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 And what international law is it re affirming and when did it become international law.



P F Tinmore said:


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







 The Mandate of Palestine and the treaty of Sevres,   as opposed to your islamonazi propaganda and blood libels you trot out as if they were true
   Posting part of a resolution as if it was international law without affirming the date of its implementation shows that it does no such thing


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

Yes, and they can misstate existing law.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, the General Assembly is not telling you what they are reaffirming.  But the UN Special Committee 24 says what it says:  They don't consider Palestine a NSGT.  

The Resolution you cite does not actually say that Palestine is state or NSGT subject to decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).  What is actually says is, if it were ever to become a colonial  territory or otherwise a NSGT, THEN --- it would be a Territory to which the Declaration is applicable and makes recommendations as to its implementation.  Even the United States could be, if someone were to bring it under their domain, it would conceptually fall under the Decolonization policy.  BUT, remember, 1524 (XV) is not LAW.  What the resolution is citing is the intent of the UN Charter which I've discussed earlier.

It would be helpful if you were to cite the exact law to which you thing is being reaffirmed, when you make these allegations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 How could they violate something that was not legally binding, and you have posted to that effect above


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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





Then why is there no mention of a nation of Palestine before 1988 ?

 I have tried and cant find any mention of a nation of Palestine, what I do find is an undefined area in the M.E. and a defined mandate area


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;
> 
> The Avalon Project : UN General Assembly Resolution 181​
> The UNPC was not mentioned.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I copied and pasted the exact verbage from the 1947 Resolution 181(II).  It refers to it as "Commission."





Quite trying to confuse the issue with your effects to misdirect the process.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> Yes, and they can misstate existing law.
> 
> ...


Is this what you are arguing against?

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to
self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r043.htm

What do you have that refutes this?

NSGT is a political designation. Who determines that designation and how is the process initiated?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


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


If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> In 1947, the UNPC as a name, has not been selected yet.
> 
> ...


The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission, which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent coordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.​
When did all this happen?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.



P F Tinmore said:


> If it is in the OPT shouldn't it be Palestinian private or state land?


*(COMMENT)*

Unless there are preemptive or predetermined international agreement/instructions, advanced domestic coordination, and/or treaty requirements, --- all private property _(tangible/intangible)_ is just that.  War, Conflict, it makes no matter.  The property goes with the owner.  

State Property _(tangible)_, profit _(earned/owed revenue streams)_ and debt _(outstanding credits and obligations/contractual terms/ principal and interest)_ are relinquished _(transferred/assumed)_ with the establishment of governmental control and sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You always address the issues as if "you were some kind of authority" to which the implementation teams/elements had to answer to meet your expectations.  Get over that.  I have sent you document.  The British Mandatory accomplished it coordination the way it wanted.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

These are instructions to the Mandatory (British) to assist the Palestine Commission.  What the Mandatory did or did not do --- does not change the historical actions  relative to the establishment of the Jewish State.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Well, almost right --- pretty damn close actually.
> 
> ...



This is confusing.  How then was Israel able to legally confiscate land under the Absentee landowner rules?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You always address the issues as if "you were some kind of authority" to which the implementation teams/elements had to answer to meet your expectations.  Get over that.  I have sent you document.  The British Mandatory accomplished it coordination the way it wanted.
> 
> ...


Of course the whole point is moot because the UN had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

This is a very good question.  This actually has nothing to do with the conflict or war.



Coyote said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Almost universally, this is called "asset forfeiture/seizure."  Each nation has different rules.  There is actually no right or wrong to it.   I don't know the exact law in Israel, but, it is probably similar to the US general concept.
http://property.laws.com/property-law/abandoned-property
*•  Who Can Acquire Abandoned Property?*

Generally, when property is abandoned by its rightful owner, it must remain unused for a specified period of time, before the government is permitted to acquire control of the property. In most instances, this period ranges from 3 years to 5 years. During the period of inactivity, banks, landlords, and insurance companies must work to locate the absent owner. ​
•  *US Legal corollaries and examples!*

This is very different from the Criminal Forfeiture Actions _(subject to forfeiture and named in the indictment that charges the criminal offense)_, Civil Forfeiture Actions _(in cases where the action is not contested in a timely manner, any legal claim to the property is thereafter barred and the agency may declare the property forfeited)_, Administrative Forfeiture _(the forfeiture action is against real property, the proceedings must be judicial, regardless of the value of the property --- usually tax issues)_, and Judicial Forfeitures _(court order or legislative action)_.  In criminal forfeitures, the property usually must have a connection with the criminal activity.  There are many countries that confiscate houses, cars, boats, aircraft, etc in the transport of contraband _(drugs and weapons)_ or the used in a serious crime or in connection with terrorism or safe havens.​
Again, this has nothing to do with the the Arab-Israeli Conflict.  This is done everyday in the Western World.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


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



At no point in any of the Arab wars of aggression was any country constrained to not gain land through warfare.

That was a UN Arab block move retroactive to the Arab aggression of 1967 after Jordan lost the rest of the Israeli mandated area west of the Jordan river.

So at the time Israel won land in a defensive action it was perfectly legal for it to keep it.

So the question becomes, are there any other examples of  the UN retroactively creating a law that targets just one country and attempts to force them to relinquish a defensive stance in an active war ?


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This reveals a childlike understanding.



P F Tinmore said:


> Of course the whole point is moot because the UN had nothing to do with the creation of Israel.


*(COMMENT)*

The actual creation is based on the Chapter I, Article 1(2) _(the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples)_, invoked by the Jewish People.  The "how" _(the procedure)_ was outlined by the UN by the General Assembly _(Steps Preparatory to Independence)_.

Again, you will attempt to any subterfuge to twist the actual events to your side of the argument.  However, it is odd that the Palestinians used the same outline and asked for membership in the UN under the same criteria in Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> This is a very good question.  This actually has nothing to do with the conflict or war.
> 
> ...


The way the absentee property law works in Israel.

The military drives the Palestinians off their land and declares it to be a closed military zone. Then three years later the civil administration declares it to be "unused" property and claims it for the state.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


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



Retroactive?

Targeting just one country?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I don't know why I'm doing your homework for you but yes, retroactively 

And yes targeting just one country while in the middle of a war. 

The 1967 situation stabilized in June 11 1967. When the UN brokered a cease fire. 

On November 22 1967 the UNSC then passed resolution 242, a non-binding resolution which demanded that Israel withdraw from its defensive positions and allow the Arabs to return to their previously illegally held positions 

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct..._B8bNhi22CnMy_SPOddksw&bvm=bv.116274245,d.amc

Now as I recall ;--) June comes BEFORE November on the calendar 

Ergo the stipulation that Israel return to its former position and give up its improved defensive stature was retroactivly applied. 

And yes, ONLY Israel is mentioned in the resolution .


----------



## Coyote (Mar 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



So, up until then, no other country has been required to return territory it gained in conflict?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



According to the resolution: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Israel was not "singled out".  The resolution called on all participating states:

_Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and *respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."*_


It also states this:
John McHugo says that *by the 1920s*, international law *no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.*[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]

Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle *that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century.* Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] *Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.*[20]


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I don't think so. Or at least thats how 242 is widely interpreted. No acquisition of land through force of arms. 

The concept didn't hit international law until the ICC established the Rome Statutes in about 1988. But all in all the 67 war was the first instance where a country was demanded to give up a defensive position while still engaged in war.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 6, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



No, it sounds to me that it was required to return the territories it had taken AND the other countries were required to make peace and recognize Israel's sovereignty and right to exist peacefully.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 6, 2016)

Even if thats accurate and once again I don't think we can take wiki all that seriously, the war never ended and Israel's right to defend itself is much better defined in the UN charter than is any requirement to abandon a defensive position in the middle of a war.

Why don't we take a look at the entire document

Quote

*Resolution 242 (1967)*

*of 22 November 1967*



_The Security Council,_


_Expressing_ its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,


*Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war *and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,


_Emphasizing further_ that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,


1. _Affirms_ that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:


(i)* Withdrawal of Israel armed forces* from territories occupied in the recent conflict;


(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;


2. _Affirms further_ the necessity


_(a)_ For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;


_(b)_ For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;


_(c)_ For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;


3. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;


4. _Requests_ the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

_Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting._

End Quote

So exactly as I said the resolution singles out Israel. Singles out Israel to abandon its defensive position in the middle of a war. and

Were is the previous mention that land acquired in war is illegal previous to this date ?

Quote 

Professor, Judge Schwebel, a former President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" _must be read together with other principles_: 4

"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, can not and should not be rewarded.

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, argued in 1968 that: 5

"... territorial change cannot properly take place as a result of the 'unlawful' use of force. But to omit the word 'unlawful' is to change the substantive content of the rule and to turn an important safeguard of legal principle into an aggressor's charter. For if force can never be used to effect lawful territory change, then, if territory has once changed hands as a result of the unlawful use of force, the illegitimacy of the position thus established is sterilized by the prohibition upon the use of force to restore the lawful sovereign. This cannot be regarded as reasonable or correct."

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated: 6

"Territorial Rights Under International Law.... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."

Columbia University Law Professor George Fletcher further clarified those points, after former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War "illegal." 7

"Annan, Fletcher suggested, is trying to redefine the Middle East conflict by calling "Israel's occupation of lands acquired in the 1967 Six-Day War 'illegal.' 8 A new and provocative label of 'illegality' is now out of the chute and running loose, ready to wreak damage. The worst prospect is that Palestinians will dig in with a new feeling of righteousness and believe that the international community will force Israel to withdraw from its 'illegal occupation.'... Israel's presence in the occupied territories is consistent with international law. In this context, the choice of the words 'illegal occupation' is a perilous threat to the diplomatic search for peace."

Nearly all of the above legal commentary regarding 'wars of aggression' were written long before the Palestinian Authority, a semi-autonomous political entity, launched a vicious guerilla war against Israel in October 2000, but the insights and opinions voiced, beg the question - whether Palestinians as well should not be considered accountable for their repeated aggression when it comes to setting "secure and recognized borders"?

End Quote


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote, et al,

It is always helpful to speak to the people who wrote a document to actually understand what the purpose and intent was for the writing.

“The phrasing of the Resolution was very carefully worked out, and it was a difficult and complicated exercise to get it accepted by the UN Security Council. I formulated the Security Council Resolution. Before we submitted it to the Council, we showed it to Arab leaders. The proposal said ‘Israel will withdraw from territories that were occupied,’ *and not from ‘the’ territories*, which means that Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.”  Quote From:  Lord George A. Brown, British Foreign Secretary from 1966 to 1968, who helped Draft Resolution 242,




Coyote said:


> According to the resolution: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Israel was not "singled out".  The resolution called on all participating states:
> 
> _Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and *respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."*_


*(COMMENT)*

Well this is very specific and politically crafted language that sounds misleading.  Understanding the intent of UNSC Res 242:

“Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from ‘all’ the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel *was not to be forced back* to the ‘fragile’ and ‘vulnerable’ Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.”  Quote From:  Eugene Rostow, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 1966-1969, who helped draft Resolution 242.​


Coyote said:


> It also states this:
> John McHugo says that *by the 1920s*, international law *no longer recognized that a state could acquire title to territory by conquest.*[17] Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.[18]


*(COMMENT)*

Yes I've heard, over and over again, this explanation.  But it is not correct.  The phrase "*acquire title to territory by conquest"* does not mean territory secured in the process of a defense or by treaty in surrender.  Even the Treaty of Lausanne (1924) divided up the Ottoman Empire that had maintain the territories for 800 years or more.  By 1920 (as John McHugo, points out) you must remember that the San Remo Convention of the Principle Allied Powers was meeting and crafting the language for the Mandate for Palestine.  (McHugo is just plain wrong.)  Even today a century later, the McHugo Concept is not made its way into customary law.  One needs only look at the events of the events of the Russian - Crimean dispute and the 2014 events where Russia acquired the Crimea and nullified the "right to self-determination."

Yes, you have correctly quoted Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.  But this aspect of the Charter is no more applicable to the 1967 War (defending against an eminent attack) than it was when the Arab League (5 nations simultaneously) attacked Israel in 1948.   In 1967, three countries of the Arab League were staging forces in preparation to invade Israel yet again:

•  8 Brigades from Syria in the North
•  10 Brigades from Jordan in the center and East
•  100,000 troops, 900 tanks and 800 artillery pieces from the sourth​
Now Article 2(4) does not over rule Article 51 (Self-Defense).



Coyote said:


> Michael Lynk says that article 2 of the Charter embodied a prevailing legal principle *that there could be "no title by conquest". He says that principle had been expressed through numerous international conferences, doctrines and treaties since the late 19th Century.* Lynk cites the examples of the First International Conference of American States in 1890; the United States Stimson Doctrine of 1932; the 1932 League of Nations resolution on Japanese aggression in China; the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936; and the Atlantic Charter of 1941.[19] *Surya Sharma says that a war in self-defense cannot result in acquisition of title by conquest. He says that even if a war is lawful in origin it cannot exceed the limits of legitimate self-defense.*[20]


*(COMMENT)*

You will notice that in no instance, does Surya Sharma (who writes his book over a century after the First International Conference of American States in 1890, make a quote.  Why, because it is simply not true to form in its meaning.  The United States alone, had several exchanges in which territory was acquired as a result of a military outcome:

*West Florida*

Declared to be a U.S. possession in 1810 after the territory had declared its independence from Spain and US Forces took take control 6 weeks later.  General Andrew Jackson accepted the delivery of West Florida from its Spanish governor on July 17, 1821.
*Texas*

In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, Mexico formally relinquished New Mexico (captured 1848) and Texas (annexed 1845).
*Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines *

ALL Three were ceded to the US after the the victory in Spanish–American War in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. 
*Cuba*

Under the 1898 Treaty of Paris, Spain relinquished all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba, with the island to be occupied by the United States.
*Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands*

The Trust Territory of these Pacific Islands  were part of a UN  Trusteeship over Micronesia administered by America after July 1947, a former League of Nations Mandate --- taken by the U.S. in 1944 from the empire of Japan.
The Atlantic Charter of 1941 is really quite short.


Atlantic Charter
AUGUST 14, 1941​

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
​

If you scan this document, you will see that it in NO WAY expresses any limits of self-defense or any prohibition on securing territory.  What it says is, "they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned."

In the Buenos Aires Declaration of 1936, the concepts are

DECLARES:

1. That the American Nations, true to their republican institutions, proclaim their absolute juridical liberty, their unqualified respect for their respective sovereignties and the existence of a common democracy throughout America;

2. That every act susceptible of disturbing the peace of America affects each and every one of them, and justifies the initiation of the procedure of consultation provided for in the Convention for the Maintenance, Preservation and Reestablishment of Peace, signed at this Conference; and

3. That the following principles are accepted by the American community of Nations:

(a) Proscription of territorial conquest and that, in consequence, no acquisition made through violence shall be recognized;

(b) Intervention by one State in the internal or external affairs of another State is condemned;

(c) Forcible collection of pecuniary debts is illegal; and

(d) Any difference or dispute between the American nations, whatever its nature or origin, shall be settled by the methods of conciliation, or unrestricted arbitration, or through operation of international justice.​
It is probably the closest, but not binding.  Disputes are settled by peaceful means, not dissimilar to the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Nations.

*(The PARADOX)*

If the concept that an aggressor set of nations, like the Arab League, is allowed to attack (Israel) and fails, but then the defender (Israel) has to give back (to the Arab League) any territorial losses, THEN what is to prevent them from repeating the cycle over and over again, until they win?

•  Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces  THEN
•  Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces  THEN
•  Attack --- Defeated --- Lost Territory Returned --- restock, resupply, reconstitute forces  THEN
•  Attack --- ...   ...   ...​No law, convention, treaty, or binding agreement purposely gives the unfair military advantage to the aggressor (the Arab League).  At some point, the aggressor nations of the Arab League must be disabled and disarmed to end the cycle of violence.

Each Member nation that is under the constant threat from military assault and jihadist action will exercise its national sovereignty --- and ultimately withdraw from the CHARTER and the Treaty  ...  if Israel decides that extraordinary events, related to the survival of the Jewish National Home, jeopardized the supreme interests of The Jewish State of Israel. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

You have more patience than I Rocco. 

These people will stop at nothing to try and weaken the Israeli position. And it aggravates them no end that many of us or even Israel itself, isn't buying into it. 

Demanding that a country under attack give up its defensive position while still in the middle of a war is just ridiculous. 

I ask again when did that ever happen before. 

What other nation is denied the right to defend itself again and again. 

and then we have this nonsense about apartheid, wow. Nothing even remotely similar to apartheid exists in Israel and yet inevitably in the course of these kinds of conversations we here someone start singing the militant islamist party line. 

Ridiculous hardly covers it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, et al,
> 
> It is always helpful to speak to the people who wrote a document to actually understand what the purpose and intent was for the writing.
> 
> ...


War (defending against an eminent attack) than it was *when the Arab League (5 nations simultaneously) attacked Israel in 1948.*​
Not true but let's play along with the propaganda.

Israel claims that it won land when the 5 Arab states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan/Iraq, Egypt) lost the 1948 war.

First off, nobody lost that war. Hostilities stopped when a UN Security Council resolution called for an armistice.

Let's confirm this.

What did Lebanon lose in the war?
What did Syria lose in the war?
What did Jordan/Iraq lose in the war?
What did Egypt lose in the war?


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



You're confusing the 1948 war with the 1967 war.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's assume your inference is correct.



P F Tinmore said:


> What did Lebanon lose in the war?
> What did Syria lose in the war?
> What did Jordan/Iraq lose in the war?
> What did Egypt lose in the war?


*(COMMENT)*

If the Arab League lost nothing, THEN what is the issue?  Why even raise the issue of military conquest?

So, according to your inference (What did Arab League Nations lose in the war?) then --- is that the Arab League is at war with Israel because they lost nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote, et al,
> 
> It is always helpful to speak to the people who wrote a document to actually understand what the purpose and intent was for the writing.
> 
> ...



Thanks Rocco!


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> You have more patience than I Rocco.
> 
> These people will stop at nothing to try and weaken the Israeli position. And it aggravates them no end that many of us or even Israel itself, isn't buying into it.
> 
> ...



Oh bugger off.  Rocco provides a good explanation and manages to do so without constantly insulting opposing points of view simply because they disagree with you.  I've never demanded Israel give up it's defensive position (for example the Golan Heights), nor have I ever denied it's right to defend itself (for example Hamas rocket fire).

Apartheid doesn't exist but some pretty powerful discrimination and inequalities exist that you just want to breeze right on over because it's Israel and since Israel is not as bad as it's neighbors it's ok.

These people?  I get pretty darn sick of "these people" too only I suspect it's a different set of "these people".

"These people"?  Stuff it.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Let's assume your inference is correct.
> 
> ...


Then how does Israel claim that it won land in that war?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > You have more patience than I Rocco.
> ...


‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts of a character similar to
those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of *an*
*institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination* by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf​
Many acts of Israel fit that description.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Apartheid was a distinct system of separation and inequality hardwired into law: http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid

I see with Israel a system closer to what existed between white Americans and Native Americans.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


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


Indeed, That was domination by colonial powers over the natives. Exactly the case of Israel over the Palestinians.

Gaza and all the little pieces left of the West Bank are the reservations.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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



Apartheid was more than just "domination by colonial powers over natives".   And, in the case of Israel - there are Arab Israeli's that live within Israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > You have more patience than I Rocco.
> ...



No its not discrimination 

Its restrictions based off the violent behavior of the Arab Muslims in Israel. 

See how you take the opportunity to slander Israel ? Why would Israel spend billions on concrete walls and security measures if it didn't need them ? There's a reason Israel is FORCED to spend that kinda money and its not because they just enjoy it. They were forced too by the actions of the violent Arab Muslims who are still quite actively engaged in a war against Israel. 

There is no apartheid and there is no discrimination or inequality, what there is, is a large violent faction of Arab Muslims hiding within the UNs nonsensical system within Israel. Who've proven again and again they simply can't be allowed to run amok within civilized society


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The terms "winning" and "Losing" are descriptions the layman can understand.  In the Political-Military (Pol-Mil) Environment, the more accurate terminology:

•  Decisive Military Victory --- definitively resolves the objective being fought over, ending one stage of the conflict.
•  Strategic Military Victory --- brings long-term advantage to the victor and disturbs the enemy's ability to wage a war.
•  Tactical Military Victory --- results in the completion of an objective, where the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor.
•  Pyrrhic Military Victory --- inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.​
In some cases, a total national strategy is defined including what victory looks like.  For instance, in Iraq, the National Security Council defined "Victory in Iraq" to be:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

• Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.

• Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.

• Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.​
In the case of the 1948-1949 War of Independence for Israel, the Tactical Military Victory by the Israelis is calculated by:







P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Actually the Israelis did not win any territory in any of the conflicts fought.  That was never the objective.  The Israeli Strategic Military Victory was framed in that the Jewish State of Israel was successfully defended against decimation by the Arab League. 

In the 1967 Six Day War, the Israeli Defense Force achieved a Decisive Military Victory in terms of Pol-Mil Objectives, and a strong Strategic Military Victory in terms of truncating the Arab Leagues ability to conduct war.  At the conclusion of the 6-Day War, the Egyptian Occupation Force and Military Governorship was driven from the Gaza Strip.  At the conclusion of the 6-Day War, the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army) was driven from the West Bank.



The 1973 Yom Kippur War was a Decisive Military Victory, and the isolation of the entire Egyptian Third Army; cut off from resupply.  It ultimately lead to the establishment of Peace Treaties with Egypt and Jordan.



It is important to understand that the intent of the Military Operations.   In terms of the Palestinian Paramilitary Forces (Arab Liberation Army and Holy War Army), both were rendered completely combat ineffective (totally irrelevant) on the battlefield.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Slander: _the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation..._

Discrimination: _treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit_

Inequality: _injustice; partiality_

*Examples:*

The permiting process for new construction: Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

 The ability to reclaim lost property: Arabs, Jews don't have equal rights to recover property
_In 1950, the Knesset passed the Absentees Property Law, which declared that *any property situated within the post-war boundaries of Israel and owned by an Arab who had left the country between November 29, 1947 and May 19, 1948, or by a Palestinian who went abroad or to an area of Palestine held by hostile forces up to September 1, 1948, lost all rights to that property.*

The law appointed a Custodianship Council for Absentees' Property, whose president was to be known as the custodian of absentees' property. It then declared that "every right an absentee had in any property shall pass automatically to the custodian at the time of the vesting of the property; and the status of the custodian shall be the same as was that of the owner of the property."

In other words, the law stated that all property belonging to "absentee" owners *was irretrievably lost to them.*..

...Ironically, the Palestinians who are being evicted from Sheikh Jarrah were in exactly the same positions as the Jewish owners of the land they have lived on since 1956. They owned property in west Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence, while the Sephardic Community and Knesset Israel committees owned land in east Jerusalem and lost it as a result of the War of Independence.

The difference is, however, that *because of Israeli legislation, the Jewish landowners could recover their land once the city was united, but the Palestinian landowners could not.*_​

Home building and land ownership: there are significant restrictions on the ability of Arab Israeli's to purchase homes. Something like 93% of Israel's land is administered by the Israeli Land Trust.  A significant portion of that land was taken through Israel's "Absentee Landowner" system and the ownership is contested.  The ILA  will not lease to foreign non-Jewish which would include Palestinian residents.
Most Arabs can't buy most homes in West Jerusalem
_Jewish settlers' takeover of houses inhabited by Palestinians for more than 50 years in Sheikh Jarrah is legal in the formal sense of the term. However, Israeli law discriminates between the Jewish and Arab residents of Jerusalem when it comes to the rights of each community to recover property owned before the dislocations created by the 1948 War of Independence.
_​

Opposition to Intermarriage/Interracial dating or even socializing: Israeli drive to prevent Jewish girls dating Arabs


Education: New Israel Fund: Arab Sector: NIF Grantees Fight Discrimination in Arab Education
_According to NIF grantee *Follow-Up Committee for Arab Education*, the Israeli government spends an average of $192 per year on each Arab student compared to $1,100 per Jewish student._

_N_ow that is from 2005, here is another from 2015: Arab schools strike in solidarity with Christian schools protesting lack of funds
_
The central administration of the 47 Christian schools in Israel pointed out, however, that the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) recognized but unofficial school networks Maayan Hinuch Torani and Hinuch Atzmai – of Shas and Agudat Yisrael respectively – receive 100% of the funding received by fully state-run schools.

Officials from the Christian schools claim that they are receiving in effect just 29% funding at present, which they say has led to a NIS 200 million shortfall for the new academic year._​

Who is slandering who here?


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

I should have said libel since its written 

Quote 

li·bel

ˈlībəl/

_noun_

noun: *libel*; plural noun: *libels*


*1*. 
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
_synonyms:_
defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; Moreaspersions, denigration, vilification, disparagement, derogation, insult, slander, malicious gossip; 
lie, slur, smear, untruth, false report; 
_informal_mudslinging, bad-mouthing 
"she sued two newspapers for libel"





the action or crime of publishing a false statement about a person."a councilor who sued two national newspapers for libel"

a false and malicious statement about a person.
a thing or circumstance that brings undeserved discredit on a person by misrepresentation.





*2*. 
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.


_verb_

verb: *libel*; 3rd person present: *libels*; past tense: *libelled*; past participle: *libelled*; gerund or present participle: *libelling*; past tense: *libeled*; past participle: *libeled*; gerund or present participle: *libeling*

*1*. 
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel."she alleged the magazine had libeled her"
_synonyms:_
defame, malign, slander, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, drag someone's name through the mud, besmirch, tarnish, taint, tell lies about, stain, impugn someone's character/integrity, vilify, denigrate, disparage, run down, stigmatize, discredit, slur; More_informal_dis, bad-mouth; 
_formal_derogate, calumniate 
"she alleged the magazine had libeled her"





make a false and malicious statement about.





*2*. 
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) bring a suit against (someone).



End Quote 

Regardless your very first example is miles off 

Quote 

Inequality: _injustice; partiality_

*Examples:*

The permiting process for new construction: Israel continues to demolish the homes built without permits

End Quote 

You have not proven that the permitting process is racially dependent 

The process of building with out a permit however is an illegal one. In virtually every country. 

If you want to convince anyone the issues are racially based instead of economically as I have. You'd do better supporting your accusations with say, a form that clearly asks for race on a building permit application.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I should have said libel since its written
> 
> Quote
> 
> ...



What "false and malicious" statement have I made?  

Permitting process:  Palestinian building permits 'political', admits Israel

_Jerusalem (AFP) - Approval of building plans for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank is subject to political considerations, Israeli defence officials have acknowledged._​
"Political considerations" that discriminate against one ethnic group and favor another ethnic group.

Discrimination?

You have yet to support your claim that the permiting process is skewed because of economics nor have you offered any evidence or specifics to disprove my claims or show them to be libel, slander etc.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I should have said libel since its written
> ...



Hold on here.

I showed plenty of economic information indicating that Arabs simply can't afford permits.

And of course there is a political process. What else would you call the planing and zoning department ? Its a government agency, highly subject to political whims

And yes when you make one accusation after another against Israel with nothing but paper thin anecdotal evidence in writing then its libel.

It would appear to be malicious and deliberate.

Did you ever dig up that building permit application ? Does it mention anything about race ?

I thought apartheid required a racial distinction ?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



A political process that favors one ethnic group over another.  



> And yes when you make one accusation after another against Israel with nothing but paper thin anecdotal evidence in writing then its libel.



I have supported everyone of my claims with multiple sources and examples.  You have not disputed any of my citations or claims with specific evidence.  All you have shown is that the poverty rate among Arab Israeli's is much higher.  If they can't afford a permit, they aren't going to be able to apply for it and they aren't going to be denied yet they are denied.  ONE permit in 2014 approved.  That is a number so far out of the ballpark compared with the Jewish permits approved.



> It would appear to be malicious and deliberate.



What it appears to be is in your head.  If you claim it is, then support it.



> Did you ever dig up that building permit application ? Does it mention anything about race ?
> 
> I thought apartheid required a racial distinction ?



I never claimed Israel was apartheid.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Well if your going to claim that the permitting process is racially biased then you might want to do more than just offer conjecture. 

Show us the permit application and make particular note of where it asks for race. 

presenting op ed pieces that simply complain complain complain and don't do anything to prove this charge of racial discrimination isn't a very strong argument. 

Unless the documents ask for race then I don't see how anyone can claim that the permitting process takes race into account.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


It doesn't need to be on the application. Everything is right there on everyone's ID.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Yeah yeah yeah, another cry of racism with exactly no evidence to support it. 

Nothing new here 

Move along people 

PS
just like the apartheid clam


----------



## P F Tinmore (Mar 7, 2016)

Apartheid in a nutshell.

Start @ 37:00


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Are you sure it's on everyone's ID? It's comical how Islamic terrorist huggers whine about "apartheid" while ignoring the double standard maintained by Islamics. 

Tell us about ID's and building permits for the kuffar in Gaza'istan and Abbas'istan.


----------



## RoccoR (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

While Coyote may have asked for a position on the matter, I'm not sure that Coyote actually promoted the claim that Israel is "apartheid."



Coyote said:


> I never claimed Israel was apartheid.


*(COMMENT)*

The entire idea of using the allegation of "Apartheid" as a political means to accomplish, though the use of legal trickery and emotional sympathy, is becoming quite the unsubstantiated process of the day.   It is the politically motivated use to suggest that some illegal activity is somehow justified using an argument that is deductively invalid or that has very little inductive strength.  The constant allegation of "Apartheid" trying to be used by Arab Palestinians to impugn Israel.


9/4/2014
A US court has ruled against the Khulumani Support Group in its 12-year legal battle to bring US corporations to book for aiding the apartheid government. But Khulumani will appeal against this ruling, says national director Marjorie Jobson.

"We survived multiple assaults on this lawsuit," says Marjorie Jobson, Khulumani's national director.

The group, which has been fighting this battle since 2002, filed a complaint against Ford Motor Company and IBM in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in April this year, was offered the opportunity by presiding judge Shira Scheindlin to resubmit the complaint and provide more evidence.
*SOURCE: * *South Africa: US Judge Rules Against Apartheid Claim*​
The general attempt is to suggest that Israel has no justification to establish a system of controls in the Israeli-occupied West Bank to counter Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) attacks and offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power; including the institution of Identification Systems _(a very common security measure in nearly every country)_.  

The HoAP allege that Israeli settlements, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, in which the agreement established both Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C" somehow violate Palestinian territory and sovereignty.  Where separate roads military and checkpoints, to mitigate HoAP use of ambushes and improvised bombing is somehow unacceptable.  The use of the Barriers to separate Israeli communities and HoAP communities to reduce the potential for infiltration, kidnapping and murders of of innocent civilians.

The HoAP content that Israel is not permitted to establish it own domestic laws pertaining to marriage, citizenship, land ownership and immigration restrictions to meet the needs of the Israeli Population.  the HoAP consider all this as a form of an institutionalized regime supporting a systematic domination by one racial group (pick one of several that make-up the Israeli population) over any other racial group ( Arab Palestinians).  

The HoAP do not consider any of the attacks against Israel and it citizens as a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

Finally, the HoAP, attempt to convince their target audience that the feel-good General Assembly Resolutions have the force of law.  They attempt to apply 21st Century considerations to acts that occurred in the 20th Century.  They try to establish a belief that the Arab Palestinians had a state prior to the establishment of the Mandate.

All these claims, and many more, have been alleged by the HoAP as a justification for the threat and use of force against Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Hollie (Mar 7, 2016)

*Hamas argues for return of Jews to Gaza*

Hamas argues for return of Jews to Gaza

Ironically, while the international community and even Israel continue to maintain that the 2005 Gaza pullout was a good thing, Hamas is making an indirect argument on why the forced evacuation of nearly 10,000 Jews from the coastal strip was a foolish move.

*...*

Hamas is now saying that no one should be surprised by this outcome, because it was the very presence of Jews in Gaza that kept things relatively quiet in the area, as compared to Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank"), which prior to 2005 saw far more violence than Gaza.

While meeting with leaders from Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' rival Fatah movement, Gaza-based Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar rejected a reconciliation deal that called on Hams to adopt non-violent resistance to Israel, as opposed to armed confrontation. Zahar pointed out that since there are no Jews living in Gaza, Hamas has no one against whom to conduct peaceful protests.

"Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?" Zahar asked. "When Gaza was occupied [sic] that model was applicable."




Islamo-logic!


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> While Coyote may have asked for a position on the matter, I'm not sure that Coyote actually promoted the claim that Israel is "apartheid."
> 
> ...



Actually her latest is that apartheid does not exist in Israel. And I failed to acknowledge that. But it seemed like a bit of a backflip as she's so quick to cry foul over every little thing Israel does. 

Even when Israel gives away building permits to the Arab Muslims who otherwise can't afford them I still hear cries of foul rihgt and left. Having read a few of her own posts I think they gave away 1,100 free permits specifically to Arabs and thousands more retroactively which I'd be surprised if they were ever paid in full. 

Deal is unless someone can come along and show where race is mentioned on the application then I call BS. 

The sad part is that all the while these people are crying over imaginary prejudice in the Israeli system. I'd love to see anyone show a single building permit issued to a Jewish person in Gaza, or Jordan, or Syria or Saudi. Pretty sure thats just some of the Muslim countries where they don't allow Judaic people to buy land. 

Does kinda screw things up tho when Coyote tries to be reasonable doesn't it ;--)


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> While Coyote may have asked for a position on the matter, I'm not sure that Coyote actually promoted the claim that Israel is "apartheid."
> 
> ...




In my opinion, labeling Israel "Apartheid" does a disservice in more than one way.  Apartheid was hard wired into South Africa's legal and political system, with a total separation of races down to every detail.  To make that claim of Israel does a real disserve to those that actually suffered under Apartheid.

But there is another aspect - by using such extreme comparisons, those who call Israel "apartheid" end up deflecting attention away from what are real inequities and injustices that occur in Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Arab Israeli's including funding of education, issuing of permits for expansion or new construction, confiscation of land under absentee owner laws, and even the lack of a single citizenship: Israeli.  And this last aspect I find puzzling.  There are no Israeli's.  There are Arab Israelis.  Jewish Israeli's. And, there was a movement to further split Palestinians by adding a citizenship for Christians.

When you have those divisions - all "seperate but equal" - can you have real equality in a society?  Can you have a unified citizenry?  Do other countries have these citizenship divisions?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


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



I don't "cry foul" over every little thing.



> Even when Israel gives away building permits to the Arab Muslims who otherwise can't afford them I still hear cries of foul rihgt and left. Having read a few of her own posts I think they gave away 1,100 free permits specifically to Arabs and thousands more retroactively which I'd be surprised if they were ever paid in full.



And they gave away many times that number of "free permits" to Jews, in addition to providing funding and infrastructure to illegal settlements (Jewish only).   I doubt they were paid for in full or otherwise.  What you failed to do is disprove my claims of inequalities and discrimminations beyond resorting to insults.



> Deal is unless someone can come along and show where race is mentioned on the application then I call BS.



Really now....discrimmination doesn't exist unless race is specifically mentioned?  Is that what you are now claiming?  Think about that.



> The sad part is that all the while these people are crying over imaginary prejudice in the Israeli system. I'd love to see anyone show a single building permit issued to a Jewish person in Gaza, or Jordan, or Syria or Saudi. Pretty sure thats just some of the Muslim countries where they don't allow Judaic people to buy land.



The sad part is, when you can't come up with a decent rebuttal or disprove my claims - throw in the other Middle East countries and obfuscate.  It's kind of like saying well - Country X doesn't kill it's gays, they just throw them in prison for life, you guys shouldn't be complaining because Country Y throws them into bonfires.  (and no, this isn't a commentary on gay policy in Israel).



> Does kinda screw things up tho when Coyote tries to be reasonable doesn't it ;--)





Warning:  criticizing Israel is not allowed.


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Well you are complaining that Israel what, doesn't provide enough free building permits to its impoverished Arab Muslims ? 

Over here you have to buy those things. They don't just give them away. Just up the road they have the highest land use fees in the country. Erie Colorado, $40,000. Its insane but I guarantee if I walked in there claiming to be a minority ( Native American ) and demanded a free building permit, all fees waved, they'd laugh their asses off and throw me out. 

Now would you call that racism or prejudice ?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Well you are complaining that Israel what, doesn't provide enough free building permits to its impoverished Arab Muslims ?



No.  That's not what I've argued.  You're the one running around posting about free permits.  Nice try though, but no cigar.  Not even a cigarello.



> Over here you have to buy those things. They don't just give them away. Just up the road they have the highest land use fees in the country. Erie Colorado, $40,000. Its insane but I guarantee if I walked in there claiming to be a minority ( Native American ) and demanded a free building permit, all fees waved, they'd laugh their asses off and throw me out.
> 
> Now would you call that racism or prejudice ?



Hey!  I know!  Show me specific evidence that Palestinian permits were denied on the basis of cost and we'll solve this issue


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Well you are complaining that Israel what, doesn't provide enough free building permits to its impoverished Arab Muslims ?
> ...



So you want me to prove I can't afford something ? or that you can't afford something ? Or that someone half way across the world can't afford something ? 

Seems pretty silly to me. 

But if you want to believe that asking for a building permit in Israel has something to do with race, you should be able to show where it asks for race on the publicly available application for a building permit. 

Its your claim, I can't imagine why you refuse to prove it.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Nope.  I'll be satisfied if you just provide me with a document that shows permits were denied on the basis of income.  That's all.  Should be easy. 



> Seems pretty silly to me.



That is what you risk, Grasshopper...



> But if you want to believe that asking for a building permit in Israel has something to do with race, you should be able to show where it asks for race on the publicly available application for a building permit.
> 
> Its your claim, I can't imagine why you refuse to prove it.



And you should be able to show that it is denied on the basis of income...it's not rocket science....or is it?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 7, 2016)

Here are some more "free permits"....actually, it's kind of a two-fer.  Not only do they get retroactive legalization but they get to build on private Palestinian land. Inequities in government policies towards Palestinian landowners and Jewish landowners?

Ofra

Israel Moves to Retroactively Okay Settlement Homes Built on Palestinian Land 
Israel announced on Thursday the initiation of a municipal plan that would retroactively legitimize structures in one of the largest West Bank settlements, and which were built on private Palestinian land.

*Over 58% of Ofra's structures are built on private Palestinian land*, a fact which has delayed potential construction plans.

However, in an attempt to allow further construction in Ofra, the state told the High Court of Justice on Thursday that it was drafting a jurisdiction plan for Ofra, the legal significance of which would be the *retroactive approval of past construction plans, even on private Palestinian land*.

Ofra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Status under Israeli law*
The Sasson Report in 2003 introduced criteria for determining the legality of a given settlement under Israeli law. In June 2007, Haaretz reported that 179 of the 600 buildings in Ofra are considered illegal by the Israeli administration.[28]

Ofra is built on private Palestinian land.[7] In a December 2008 report, B'Tselem has argued that while all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law, Ofra is illegal even under Israeli law stating that it violates 3 of the 4 established criteria for legality in the Sasson report. According to the report, while Ofra was authorized in 1979, it was never defined a jurisdictional area, never had an outline plan approved and no lawful building permits were issued. The report added that at least 58 percent of the settlement's built-up area is registered in the Land Registry Office under the names of Palestinians. Ofra residents claim the land was purchased legally from the Palestinians.[29][5] They contended that the land was purchased legally but suggested that showing documents of the purchases would lead to Palestinian retribution attacks. Land deals are usually kept secret to protect Palestinian sellers. [30] The Yesha Council accused B'Tselem of trying to remove Jews from their land saying the group "will spare no means - even lies" in order to harm the settlements.[29]

Homes were built on land bought with forged documents. Hundreds of structures in Ofra came under a demolition order from the Civil Administration after the villagers of Ein Yabrud laid a petition at the Israeli High Court of Justice over construction on their private land.[31]

A secret database, published by Haaretz in 2009, confirmed that Ofra was largely built on private Palestinian lands, without approval.[32] In September 2011, the Israeli government set up plans to legitimise the settlement retroactively.[33]

Ofra's settlement fence was built without permits over wide swathes of land belonging to the Palestinian villages of Deir Dibwan and Silwad. The IDF has confirmed that permits were lacking, and undertook to rebuild the fence closer to Ofra within 2012. Top quality soil from this agricultural land is systematically harvested, according to Haaretz 'stolen', for settlement use.[34] One house near the settlement, owned by the Palestinian Shehadeh family, who won a Jerusalem district court judgement in their favour, is still used as a yeshiva for Ofra's married men, and was expropriated by the IDF in favour of the settlers 10 days after the verdict was passed.[35] In the wake of a suit filed in 2008, on 9 February 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the demolition of 9 Ofra homes as standing on land with Palestinian title. The government was given2 years to demolish the housing,[36]


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



You are completely confused.

No one suggested permits were issued on the basis of income.

I'm saying that just like everywhere else you have to be able to afford the permit fee.

Stands to reason that the lower 20% of the income earners, say under $2500 a year average GDP for Arab Muslims in Israel, couldn't afford to build; and therefore simply aren't buying too many permits.

I didn't say anything about permits being issued according to income level.

Yikes, try and keep up


----------



## Boston1 (Mar 7, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Here are some more "free permits"....actually, it's kind of a two-fer.  Not only do they get retroactive legalization but they get to build on private Palestinian land. Inequities in government policies towards Palestinian landowners and Jewish landowners?
> 
> Ofra
> 
> ...



Wait a minute now. One phony claim at a time. 

"they get to build on palestinian land" ??????? What palestinian land ? For that matter what palestinians ?????? 

There is no such thing as a palestinian. We have Jordanians, Israeli's and Arab Muslims who refuse citizenship. But there is no such thing as palestine ergo there can be no such thing as a palestinian. 

The next little jewel in that crown of crap was it being Arab Muslim land. Arab Muslim land is east of the Jordan. The Judaic people were awarded EVERYTHING west of the Jordan. Go check your mandate and ref, the Jordan Memorandum. Its extremely clear. 

Also if a land owner fails to pay his/her taxes for x number of years around here they forfeit their land. So if a land owner in another country abandons their land and fails to pay, why is it unfair if the gov then auctions off the land ?


----------



## Shusha (Mar 8, 2016)

Hmmmm  Ofra is an interesting case study.  First, most of the information I can find about it all sources itself in a single B'tselem report and I'm having some difficulty finding other sources.  I can't find any confirmation that "58% of the land is registered to Palestinians", other than that one report, and frankly, so many of these reports confuse privately owned land with "Palestinian land", I'm just not willing to take their say-so.  

What makes Ofra especially interesting in that the Jewish residents claim they purchased the land fair and square from Palestinians, even paying far more than the land was worth, but failed to register their purchase for fear of Palestinian retribution on the sellers for selling to Jews.  If true, what a nice scam -- "sell" the land, but if it fails to get registered -- its still yours.  

On the other hand, the Palestinians appear to be claiming that they didn't sell the land at all, and that the Israelis took it, but they failed to register a complaint against it and allowed the Israelis to have the land for many years, giving the Israelis the belief that they now had legal title to it.  

Its a mess.  

But I think that is the lesson here.  These are not black-and-white "you stole my land" issues.  They are complex.  A Palestinian village has some land which is designated as Area B in Oslo.  But they think that more of the land around their village (Area C) "belongs" to their village, even though the land was never registered to private individuals.  Or the land was actually purchased by their family in the past, but they failed to register it in order to avoid paying taxes.  So its technically not theirs.  Or they actually never purchased it, but assumed it to be part of the village and thus "their" land.  

And then a Palestinian decides to sell his land, actually privately owned and registered, to an Israeli, but is actually fearful of his life if it is discovered.  So he asks that the land not be registered, to which the Israeli agrees.  Or, possibly, he is not really fearful of his life, but realizes that if the Israeli doesn't register the land purchase -- the land is still technically his.  Or, possibly, Israelis just start using and building on land, claiming they purchased it when they did not.

Its a mess.  

And I think we would do well to remember that there are all sorts of actors here:  Jewish Israeli migrants and returnees; Arab Israelis; Palestinian citizens; governments; courts and they all have different goals and different end games.  

My point being, trying to reduce it down to "Israel is bad", "Israel is apartheid" or "Israel is discriminatory" is a fool's game.  Its complicated.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








So once again you are using a UN recommendation from 1960 claiming it was International law in place in 1923. So can we use the same resolution against the invaders and colonisers of the Americas and will you lead by your example ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 WHY when the land was owned by Jews, paid for and worked by the Jews.  By your criteria your home is built on first nations lands, so when will you be giving it up


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 When the British left in a hurry after being attacked once too often by the arab muslims.

 Why do you argue against the evidence that is in your own cut and pastes


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 Because they followed the Palestinian practice set out in 1949. Remember that when they passed a law in Jordan to legally steal Jewish owned land and you turn a blind eye to it happening.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 Correct it was the LoN way back in 1923 that set the ball rolling, it took 25 years for the Jews to make their move


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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









 LINK from a reliable unbiased and non partisan source


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 YEP    look at the dates of implementation, then look at the nation it is aimed at.




 A resolution passed in November 1967 has no legal force prior to that date, so how can it be used against Israel for what happened in June and July of that year ?


 How far back do you want to go back with your "laws" as they will eventually land in your lap and take away your home.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Correct as there was no anti semitic UN to tell them to


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...










 It does not say that in 242 at all, that is the words of John Mchugo.


 This is where your Jew hatred is shown the most when you attribute things to UN resolutions that are not there. Both of your little snippets are individuals views of how they interpret the resolution.  

Right up until November of 1967 land was won in war, and in the case of muslims it is still the case. Look at what is happening in Africa, and who is claiming land conquered in war. Then look at the former Yugoslavia  for more evidence.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Then try reading the authors views on what 242 really meant, and get your eyes opened, not some idiots that were not even there when the resolution was written.

From your link



Upon presenting the draft resolution to the Security Council, the U.K. representative Lord Caradon said:

All of us recognize that peace is the prize. None of us wishes a temporary truce or a superficial accommodation. We could never advocate a return to uneasy hostility. As I have said, my Government would never wish to be associated with any so-called settlement which was only a continuation of a false truce, and all of us without any hesitation at all can agree that we seek a settlement within the principles laid down in Article 2 of the Charter. So much for the preamble.

As to the first operative paragraph, and with due respect for fulfillment of Charter principles, we consider it essential that there should be applied the principles of both withdrawal and security, and we have no doubt that the words set out throughout that paragraph are perfectly clear.

As to the second operative paragraph, there is I believe no vestige of disagreement between us all that there must be a guarantee of freedom of navigation through international waterways. There must be a just settlement of the refugee problem. There must be a guarantee and adequate means to ensure the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area.

As to the third operative paragraph, I have said before that I consider that the United Nations special representative should be free to decide himself the exact means and methods by which he pursues his endeavors in contact with the States concerned both to promote agreement and to assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted and final settlement."[8]

Secretary of State Dean Rusk commented on the most significant area of disagreement regarding the resolution:

There was much bickering over whether that resolution should say from "the" territories or from "all" territories. In the French version, which is equally authentic, it says withdrawal de territory, with de meaning "the." We wanted that to be left a little vague and subject to future negotiation because we thought the Israeli border along the West Bank could be "rationalized"; certain anomalies could easily be straightened out with some exchanges of territory, making a more sensible border for all parties. We also wanted to leave open demilitarization measures in the Sinai and the Golan Heights and take a fresh look at the old city of Jerusalem. But we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war. On that point we and the Israelis to this day remain sharply divided. This situation could lead to real trouble in the future. Although every President since Harry Truman has committed the United States to the security and independence of Israel, I'm not aware of any commitment the United States has made to assist Israel in retaining territories seized in the Six-Day War.[9]





 Clears up many of the LIES and propaganda written about 242.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Soldiers, arms, ammunition, military vehicles, land in the case of Jordan and Egypt. And most of all face in the muslim world

 THEY LOST BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WIN, it is that simple.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 Because the arab nations claimed the west bank, gaza and Jerusalem.   If The arab nations did not lose anything then why are they so upset over it, and why are some still at  war with Israel


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...







 Many acts of many nations fit that description also, but it does not make them apartheid nations. What acts in Israel constitute apartheid, and compare them to what the Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Saudis etc. have in place


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


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








 So not apartheid as your fellow team Palestine members claim.  While the arab muslims have the right to stand for election and are promoted to positions or authority apartheid is not in evidence. What happens outside of Israel is not apartheid either as it only applies to nations.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 And the arab muslims that flooded the area are not colonisers are they. The little pieces that they have left of gaza and the west bank are not their reservations are they ?


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 Similar to your thought process then that favours one group over another


 And in most cases they all go back to the same source, that happens to islaminazi propaganda

As is your inability to think clearly when you are demonising Jews and Israel


You have never said that those who do are wrong either.................


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Is it, then why does Israeli ID have boxes that need to be ticked before it denotes race, religion and such like. It is the same old tired lies that are destroyed every time they are posted , like the registration plates on cars. The arab muslims went to other sections of the area to register their cars so they showed a green plate, then complained that it was racial discrimination to single them out for having a Palestinian registration.


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Apartheid in a nutshell.
> 
> Start @ 37:00









 Just more islamonazi propaganda and blood libels that show how evil the Palestinians and their enablers are


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...









 You can criticize Israel and the Jews as much as you want, as long as it is deserved and the same level of criticism is levied at other nations, races and religions. So when you call out Israel on its building laws you should balance it by showing that the Palestinians in the same place are 5 times as strict when it comes to allowing Jews to build. Or when Israel enforces Jordanian law as required by the Geneva conventions that it cant enforce the same laws on the Jews because of the Geneva conventions


----------



## Phoenall (Mar 8, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Here are some more "free permits"....actually, it's kind of a two-fer.  Not only do they get retroactive legalization but they get to build on private Palestinian land. Inequities in government policies towards Palestinian landowners and Jewish landowners?
> 
> Ofra
> 
> ...








 You keep bringing up "  private Palestinian land ", would this happen to be Jewish owned land stolen in 1949 by the Palestinians with the help of Jordan. And then saw Jordan enact laws to "legally" steal the land title from the Jews ?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 8, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Hmmmm  Ofra is an interesting case study.  First, most of the information I can find about it all sources itself in a single B'tselem report and I'm having some difficulty finding other sources.  I can't find any confirmation that "58% of the land is registered to Palestinians", other than that one report, and frankly, so many of these reports confuse privately owned land with "Palestinian land", I'm just not willing to take their say-so.
> 
> What makes Ofra especially interesting in that the Jewish residents claim they purchased the land fair and square from Palestinians, even paying far more than the land was worth, but failed to register their purchase for fear of Palestinian retribution on the sellers for selling to Jews.  If true, what a nice scam -- "sell" the land, but if it fails to get registered -- its still yours.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree, it is complicated, though I tend to think IF they bought it fair and square, as they claim, there would be no ongoing court case, it would be settled.  

There are other sources mention though, that seem pretty disturbing, though I don't know if they apply to this specific case.  One is a reference to the "Sasson Report".  Sasson Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *Sasson Report* is an official Israeli government report published on 8 March 2005 that concluded that Israeli state bodies had been discreetly diverting millions of shekels to build West Bank settlements and outposts that were illegal under Israeli law. The report was commissioned by the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and was headed by the former head of the State Prosecution Criminal Department Talia Sasson. Talia Sasson would later run for the Israeli elections as part of the left wing party Meretz.

In addition, according to B'tselem, the HCJ has ordered the homes on private land demolished.  It would seem that in the courts the issue is resolved but the state is unwilling to carry out the orders.  The state appears to have acknowledged Ofra was built on private Palestinian land.

_Israel’s High Court orders state to carry out demolition orders issued for nine structures in the settlement of Ofra, despite state objection. Court: Denying the petition would have sanctioned severe harm to Palestinian rights and rule of law, which is unacceptable_

_In a dramatic decision, Israel’s High Court of Justice (former President A. Grunis, President M. Naor, and Justice I. Amit) ruled Sunday that the state must carry out demolition orders issued for nine illegal structures built on privately-owned Palestinian land in the West Bank settlement of Ofra. The Court accepted the petition filed by Palestinian residents of nearby villages and Israeli human rights organizations Yesh Din and B’Tselem to enforce the law regarding illegal construction in the area. In light of the state’s claim that the nine structures essentially share the status of many other houses in Ofra, the ruling has far-reaching implications for the issue of illegal construction on privately-owned Palestinian land...

..Unlike in other cases concerning illegal Israeli construction on Palestinian land in the West Bank, the state claimed in this petition that due to “special circumstances”, the usual priorities for enforcement of planning and building laws did not apply in this case. *The “special circumstances”, the state explained, were that most structures in Ofra had been unlawfully erected on privately-owned Palestinian land, i.e. their status was almost identical to that of the nine structures under examination. The state’s problematic argument was that as almost the entire settlement of Ofra had been built on privately-owned Palestinian land, there was no justification to demolish those particular nine structures – although they were new and the petition was filed before they were completed.* Therefore, the state argued, the fate of the nine structures would be determined along with the rest of the settlement, through negotiations on a permanent-status agreement with the Palestinians. State representatives referred to Ofra throughout the court sessions as “the largest illegal outpost in the West Bank”._​ 
For each person claiming Israel is discrimminating, you have someone pointing to dishonest Palestinians?  Which is truth and what is assumed?


----------



## Coyote (Mar 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


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



Again, I never said Israel was apartheid.


----------



## Coyote (Mar 8, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some more "free permits"....actually, it's kind of a two-fer.  Not only do they get retroactive legalization but they get to build on private Palestinian land. Inequities in government policies towards Palestinian landowners and Jewish landowners?
> ...



As far as Jewish land that was stolen by the Palestinians - it should be returned to it's legal owners.  However, that has largely been done.  Israeli laws allow Jews to reclaim lost property while making it almost impossible for Palestinians to do so.  I quoted a source to that in a prior post.


----------

