# The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen



## José (Feb 6, 2015)

Some of you may remember the thread I created last year about the dehumanization of the palestinian people in which I explained how WWII represented a huge paradigm shift in the way western states defined themselves and the human value assigned to the world Jewry and the native inhabitants of Palestine.

Dehumanization Palestinians most powerful enemy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This thread will provide a series of practical examples that will show how all these paradigms are not merely arcane, abstract concepts with little to no connection with the "real world".

They are real, concrete ideas that model the way of thinking of most countries around the world, both governments and citizens.

This is the first thread of a trilogy that will prove the big impact of these paradigms. 

I will "extract" these paradigms from the threads and posts of an average western citizen, our fellow member Coyote first, and later, from the posts of JakeStarkey, Sallow, High Gravity, Sealybobo, etc...

So let's briefly recap the paradigms WWII created:

*1 - Total racial equality among all racial groups of a given country.*

*2 - The super humanization of the jewish people.*

*3 - The dehumanization of the palestinian people.*

*4 - The redefinition of western countries as multi-racial nations without a predominant ethnic identity*


----------



## José (Feb 6, 2015)

This was a thread Coyote created about the process of desegregation in the southern states... it tells the story of the first black american kid to attend a white school.


----------



## José (Feb 6, 2015)

*Happy Birthday Ruby Bridges*​
A few days late....

Such a tiny girl, surrounded by such tall and serious men, doing something incredibly brave.











> Every morning a group of forty or more women, known as the “cheerleaders”, shouted obscene, racist threats at Ruby as she entered Frantz Elementary. Ruby received instruction in isolation from her teacher, Mrs. Barbara Henry. Even to use the restroom, she had to be escorted by the marshals, and Ruby ate lunch alone in the classroom every day.


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

Can you tell me who benefits from keeping those discussions from happening?


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 6, 2015)

José_LA said:


> Some of you may remember the thread I created last year about the dehumanization of the palestinian people in which I explained how WWII represented a huge paradigm shift in the way western states defined themselves and the human value assigned to the world Jewry and the native inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Dehumanization Palestinians most powerful enemy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ...


The world of today was forged by the events  WWI, where evil had a beginning and fear had a beginning..


----------



## José (Feb 6, 2015)

We can clearly distinguish in Coyote's thread the new social paradigm that emerged in America\West and most of the world:

*The absolute racial equality among all the groups with a historical presence in the territory comprised by the state.*

During the first half of the last century black americans were subjected to "mild" forms of racial discrimination, such as political disenfranchisement, segregation of public spaces, transportation and schools. Mild when compared to the ones that are imposed on the palestinian people. Nothing even remotely similar to ethnic enclaves surrounded with barbed wire fences, machine gun nests and minefields. But the presence of the social paradigm of racial equality makes Coyote's mind perceive even minor forms of discrimination like separate schools as abhorrent, repulsive, dehumanizing. Even if the segregated schools had the same quality of education Coyote would still condemn them as an expression of ethnic supremacism because of the act of segregating itself.

When you read the thread created by Coyote on the little black girl and "her" fight against segregation you would expect similar threads on the rights of the palestinian people because you'd think the paradigm of racial equality created by the armed conflict of the last century is applied equally and universally around the world. Much to your shock and surprise you find Coyote (aka, the average western citizen) supporting the moral depravation of a jewish supremacist state inflicting a level of dehumanization that makes the segregation endured by american blacks pale in comparison:



> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> No.
> 
> I'd dismantle all settlements on occupied territories.
> ...



Your first reaction is to refuse to believe the thread about Ruby and the post supporting the murder of palestinians in their own homeland were written by the same person. After confirming the authenticity of the posts you start wondering if a time period of 5, 10 years separate both messages... but no, they are sometimes posted on the same day.

The same person who express indignation with racial segregation in America expresses her support for this:











You'd think someone who supports a jewish supremacist state in Palestine would not only support social segregation in America but even extra judicial killings that marked the history of the country:






To make sense of the absurd, contradictory way Coyote (aka, the average westerner) reasons you have to take into account that the paradigm of racial equality between ethnic groups with a historical presence in the country is the rule applied to almost all cases:

1 - Whites, blacks, hispanics in America

1 - Maoris, whites and asians in New Zealand

etc, etc, etc...

The dehumanising paradigm through which the palestinian people is viewed is the exception to the rule. Equality emcompasses virtually all cases but palestinians.

The way these paradigms compel people to think is so predictable that I can even anticipate Coyote's reply to the entire Board.

She's gonna say something along these lines:

*"Wait a moment, José... You're comparing apples to oranges... Black americans were citizens of the country, palestinians in the OT are not israeli citizens."*

She can't help but thinking about Palestinians in the OT as if they were as foreign to the region as Chinese or Russians, as if they were a people with no historical presence in Western Palestine and consequently no right to reside there.

The ways of thinking created by the last major war in Europe prevents her from perceiving this group of human beings:





as individuals entitled to same set of rights as this little girl:






As Coyote herself once told me, the right of refugees to live in Western Palestine "doesn't exist anymore", it's all "smoke and mirrors".

Having been born or having her formative years after WWII, Coyote (aka, the average westerner) is the result of these two complementary paradigms: the super humanization of the jewish people and the dehumanizing one applied to palestinians as well as equality among the rest.

It's ironic that the paradigms prevent her from realizing she perceives the Palestinian people through the same dehumanizing paradigm the white supremacists she lambasts...






She even goes further advocating the physical elimination of palestinians who fight against the exile in the ethnic enclaves:

Only when you take into consideration the combined effect of these 3 post-WWII social paradigms Coyote's schizophrenic political thought (racial equality in America and jewish supremacism in Palestine) becomes perfectly understandable.

As Montelatici would say, it's Orwellian (Orwellian in the sense of someone "learning to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent").

Orwellian but perfectly comprehensible.


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out.  Got it.


----------



## Hossfly (Feb 6, 2015)

José_LA said:


> Some of you may remember the thread I created last year about the dehumanization of the palestinian people in which I explained how WWII represented a huge paradigm shift in the way western states defined themselves and the human value assigned to the world Jewry and the native inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Dehumanization Palestinians most powerful enemy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ...


This thread ain't worth a pair o' dimes.


----------



## José (Feb 6, 2015)

> Originally posted by *Disir*
> Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.



I used Coyote's thread to exemplify the mindset of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

I could have used JakeStarkey, rightwinger, High_Gravity or any other poster who displays this same kind of double standards.

Don't take it personally. : )


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

It's not personal. I dislike bullshit.


----------



## Porker (Feb 6, 2015)

They told me to think outside the box, now I'm looking up out of the garbage can.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 6, 2015)

Disir said:


> Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?



People also forget that palestinians are not Israeli, they don't want to be.  Jobs and voting cannot be equal to both in Israel or Israeli held land for obvious reasons.  Health care and education is open to both but most palestinians prefer non-Israeli teachers.  Housing in Israel is obviously not open to palestinians but arab Israelis live in the same neighborhoods and buildings with the rest of Israelis.

Comparing germans and french with regard to equality in german might help.  Palestinians are foreigners in Israel, like french are foreigners in german.  French don't vote in german, don't have the right to work without permits, etc.  French are not actively at war with german, at this time.  In France, the french tend to turn their noses up at foreigners, especially when they try to speak french.

Under jordan and especially egypt the lot of palestinians was far worse than after Israel controlled WB and G.  The lot of many arabs in other nations in the region are worse that the palestinians.
Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, syria, jordan and iraq is worse.  Yet, palestinians whine and rant and rave about everything.  Even the UN and other donors of the palestinians, especially in gaza have closed their checkbooks and withheld even money promised already.  UN does not have money to feed the refugees anymore.  They are dealing with those far more in need from Syria right now.  Even the PA does not want to send money or invest in G.  Syria has killed more palestinians that Israel in the last 60+ yrs.  Even in the last few tens of thousands have been killed by assad forces or starved to death in syrian camps.
Egypt has only had the rafah open a few times this last year for humanitarian exit of palestinians from egypt, and they have shot fishing boats that stray too close to their waters.  They have declared hamas a terrorist organization and will not negotiate with them anymore.

Is it possible that the reason palestinians are dissatisfied has more to do with their attitude and actions that with Israel?

You really think Israel is discriminating?  What about the rest of the arab world?  Perhaps there is something the palestinians can do beside incite hate and violence against Israel to change their lot in the region.  Less than a half of the palestinians live in the G/WB/Israeli area, half maybe of those are in G.  Most in the WB are doing far better than those in G.  So how many are really "suffering" under Israeli's yoke?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 6, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?
> ...


Palestinians are foreigners in Israel,​
Someone born in Haifa is a foreigner?


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?
> ...



Wrong girl. Read my statement again. 

Deputy Head of the Samaria Regional Council Yossi Dagan, who participated in the TV feature, explained:

“There are 10 large industrial centers in Judea and Samaria, in which some 15,000 Palestinians work side by side with Israeli employees. At Barkan alone 3,000 Palestinians are employed together with 3,000 Israeli employees. They work together, earning the same wages, enjoying the same social benefits, vacation days and pension as prescribed by Israeli law. They go on trips together. Coexistence between the two peoples happens here, and all are awarded with a good and respectable livelihood.”
Arab Media Praises Israel s Treatment of Palestinian Workers United with Israel

Palestinian workers back Scarlett Johansson s opposition to SodaStream boycott video - CSMonitor.com

Mayor Nir Barkat proudly trumpets the investments he has made over the past five years in the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem: about $141 million for roads and infrastructure, $113 million to build 500 classrooms, more than $1 million for a single soccer field in Beit Safafa.


But as part of a broader “anti-normalization” campaign, the Palestinian leadership has for decades warned residents against casting ballots. So a vast majority do not vote, despite the possibility that their large numbers could win a solid blocking minority on the 31-member City Council, if not a winning coalition with sympathetic Israelis.

“The whole thing is not really rational,” said Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al Quds University, whose family has 1,300-year roots in Jerusalem. “It’s not by reason that people are guided; it’s by sentiments and feelings and fears and histories.”

Mr. Nusseibeh once advocated Palestinian voting, backing an Arab newspaper publisher who ran for mayor in 1987 but withdrew after his cars were burned and his home vandalized. Yet Mr. Nusseibeh himself has never voted here, either. And he said that the current Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, with the fate of Jerusalem among the contentious questions on the agenda, make people even more wary that voting could be seen as legitimizing Israel’s control of the city. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/w...-politically-powerless-in-jerusalem.html?_r=0

Arab residents express reactions to voting that range from disdain and apathy to surprise that there are elections altogether. Many of them feel a deep attachment to their Palestinian identity, reject Israeli politicians’ being active in their areas or are jaded by a system that has never worked for them and feel never will. They also lack adequate knowledge about their own right to vote.

Many Arabs are considered permanent residents of Jerusalem and live in parts of the city that were conquered in 1967 and annexed in 1980. The Local Authorities Elections Law allows permanent residents to vote in city council elections but not Knesset elections.

Around 160,000 east Jerusalemites will be eligible to vote this month. To be able to vote, people had to have registered as living in the city before September 12 with the Interior Ministry.

But the Arab vote is so low that candidates admit to not campaigning among them, even though the community makes up a potential voter base of 38% of Jerusalem’s Arab residents.

Omri Sheinfeld, a spokesman for the grassroots Yerushalmim party, tells In Jerusalem in an email, “The Arab citizens of Jerusalem, of whom very few vote, are not one of our focus groups.” He adds that the party also doesn’t focus on the haredim, “since they vote as a bloc.”

But Sheinfeld says that the platforms of the party – such as improving education and fighting for gender equality – appeal to Jews and Arabs alike, but they simply don’t have the resources necessary to campaign to a group that has appeared apathetic about voting. It is the responsibility of the city to encourage voting and make it accessible to all, Sheinfeld writes, but in the end, “each person and group decides for themselves” whether or not to vote.

VOTER TURNOUT among this group has always been low, and this has come to be the accepted norm. In a 2003 interview, Barkat candidly divulged that his advisers told him there was no electoral reason to include the Arab neighborhoods in his platform.

But according to the mayor’s office, under Barkat the Jerusalem municipality has invested greatly in the Arab sector in planning and construction, transportation, education and community services. In 2011, the municipality invested NIS 3 million to help facilitate the rezoning of neighborhoods, help residents with proof of ownership issues and “began the diligent process of naming and numbering unnamed streets in eastern Jerusalem.”
http://www.jpost.com/In-Jerusalem/F...AL/RMXndss4Gewwd1S+zbuyGRXsnFYNwTbP6LAMyf2vrm


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 6, 2015)

Disir said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



Not all palestinians can enter Israel or Israeli areas of the WB to seek out jobs.  Opportunities are there but there are many reason a person might not be able to find work with Israelis or in Israel.

There is still a security problem that makes the issue of jobs seem some what unequal.  Israel also pays better so the same job in the WB or at an Israeli company is also used as part of the attacks against Israel.  Palestinians are payed the same but there is a disparity between the income in Israel and the income in the WB.
It is more perception and propaganda than fact but it is an excuse to incite hate.


----------



## Disir (Feb 6, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



 By law the Israelis have to pay the same wages and benefits. The difference is that the Palestinians that work in the Israeli factories are willing to stand in line and know that where they are going everyone is equal and the NGOs hate that.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 7, 2015)

José_LA said:


> Some of you may remember the thread I created last year about the dehumanization of the palestinian people in which I explained how WWII represented a huge paradigm shift in the way western states defined themselves and the human value assigned to the world Jewry and the native inhabitants of Palestine.
> 
> Dehumanization Palestinians most powerful enemy US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ...







 Only one problem WW2 had nothing to do with the resurrection of the JEWISH NATIONAL HOME, that was brought about by promises made before and during WW1. So you are 35 years adrift in your ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDA


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 7, 2015)

José_LA said:


> *Happy Birthday Ruby Bridges*​
> A few days late....
> 
> Such a tiny girl, surrounded by such tall and serious men, doing something incredibly brave.
> ...







 Isnt this how the Palestinians treat all the non muslims that dare to exist in Palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 7, 2015)

José_LA said:


> We can clearly distinguish in Coyote's thread the new social paradigm that emerged in America\West and most of the world:
> 
> *The absolute racial equality among all the groups with a historical presence in the territory comprised by the state.*
> 
> ...







 Is that why the UN had to invent a new rule for arab muslims to prove they were indigenous, otherwise 90% of them would be sent packing back to Syria and Iran.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

José_LA said:


> We can clearly distinguish in Coyote's thread the new social paradigm that emerged in America\West and most of the world:
> 
> *The absolute racial equality among all the groups with a historical presence in the territory comprised by the state.*
> 
> ...



Wow.  This is certainly an extremely inventive pyschological dissertation on my posts, not to mention a bit distorted.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

José_LA said:


> > Originally posted by *Disir*
> > Oh, I see, we are going to play to the Mods in an effort to lay a specific line of bullshit out. Got it.
> 
> 
> ...



A few things.

On the dehumanization of the Palestinians.  I've often brought that up and agree with it.
I've also posted about the inequities and injustices that exist within Israel in regard to both the Palestinians and it's Arab citizens compared to it's Jewish citizens.
I've frequently cited the fact that contrary to the claim that the Palestinians are autonomous, that is not true - they exist under two sets of law, the Palestinian law, and Israeli military law which has been shown to be brutal and unjust particularly in it's treatment of Palestinian children.  

Now there are questions.
Is violence directed at civilians and children acceptable for any cause?
Does a nation have the right to defend it's citizens? 
Do a people have a right to self determination and/or equality under the law?

What happens when any of the above come in conflict with each other?

For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?
The right to self determination when both parties are arguing for that on the same land?

Equality and dehumanization within a nation is comparable to our civil rights struggle.  Demanding that Israel recognize and treat it's citizens with equality, not just on paper, but in action.

The situation with the Palestinians is more complex.
Do they deserve autonomy and is their struggle just?  Yes, I firmly believe it is.
Should they be given the entire region that we now call Israel and the Occupied Territories?
If the answer is yes - what will happen to the Jewish minority?  Or does that matter?
What's a just solution here?  

I see only one:  two states, with Israel withdrawing from most of the occupied territories and land swaps negotiated so that the security needs of each can be met.  Seems fairest.  And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack  by rocket fire or other artillary they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary.  That is the right of any nation.  I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Is that why the UN had to invent a new rule for arab muslims to prove they were indigenous, otherwise 90% of them would be sent packing back to Syria and Iran.



Along with 90% of the Jews.  What's your point?


----------



## abu afak (Feb 7, 2015)

If anything, 'Palestinians' are unique in the post-WWII scene, in being unabsorbed by their surrounding Arab Brothers. Denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs..
But Pampered in getting their own Refugee Agency/UNRWA that has devoured 80% of the World/UN refugee resource due to political (yes, I believe bias as well).
So that now there are 5 Million palestinian 'refugees', up from 700K in 1948.
3rd, 4th Gen and anyone intermarried with non-Palestinians.
Absurd.
While real refugees go hungry, UNRWA runs, summer camps, schools, Free Medical care and prescription drug benefits, etc!

Yes, a unique and Disastrous mistake/"Paradigm" in allowing Palestinians to get their own agency and Encourage/underwrite them to go Unabsorbed, UNLIKE all others post WW!! refugees.

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/...vancing-peace/
*Ending UNRWA and Advancing Peace*
by Elliott Abrams
December 19, 2011

_"Since the end of the Second World War, millions of refugees have left refugee camps, and refugee status, and moved to countries that accepted them–quickly or slowly–as citizens. Post-World War II Europe was an archipelago of displaced persons and refugee camps, housing 850,000 people in 1947–Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, Latvians, Greeks, and many more nationalities. By 1952, all but one of the camps had closed. Hundred of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe went to Israel after 1948, and then hundreds of thousands more arrived from Arab lands when they were forced to flee after 1956 and 1967. The children and grandchildren of these refugees, born after their arrival, were never refugees themselves; they were from birth citizens of the new land, as their parents had become immediately upon their own arrival. In this process many nations and agencies have played wonderful roles, not least the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

*The exception to this refugee story is the Palestinians.* In most of the Arab lands to which they fled or travelled after 1948 they were often treated badly, and refused citizenship (with Jordan the major exception) or even the right to work legally. And instead of coming under the protection of UNHCR, they had a special agency of their own, UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem; instead it has presided over a massive increase in its size, for all the descendants of Palestinian refugees are considered to be refugees as well. Once there were 750,000; now there are *Five Million* people considered by UNRWA to be “Palestinian refugees.” 
And *UNRWA is now the Largest UN agency, with a staff of 30,000. 
UNHCR cares for the rest of the world with about 7,500 personnel.*

The Political background to this story is simple: *Only in the case of Israel was there a determined Refusal to accept what had happened during and after World War II,"..."*
[.......]
Utterly ridiculous._


----------



## Art__Allm (Feb 7, 2015)

Disir said:


> Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...



Many Zionists promote the idea that Palestinian people do not exist.
Is that not de-humanisation?

And of course the media does not make a lot of fuss, when hundred of Palestinian children are killed in a "retaliation" attack.

The prominent Zionist rabbi Ovadia Yosef openly declared that non-Jews were created to serve their Jewish masters, like a donkey was created to serve its master.

Did any western leader condemn the hate speeches of this Rabbi, who de-humanized non-Jews and called for the annihilation of whole groups of people?

No, of course not!

And this rabbi got the biggest funeral in the history of Israel, and was called by Israeli leadership "our great Jewish scholar".


----------



## Hossfly (Feb 7, 2015)

Art__Allm said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...
> ...


Fo schizzle, dood!


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

Disir said:


> Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?



There is dehumanization of Palestinians on the Israeli side.  It's even more pronounced now that there is a policy of near total seperation.  Many Jews never encounter Palestinians and many Palestinians never encounter Jews - it makes it easy for each to think the worst of the other.  In addition, increased violence has hardened attitudes and made it harder for each to see the other as human beings.  Why Israel s racist violence problem is getting worse - Vox


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 7, 2015)

Coyote said:


> José_LA said:
> 
> 
> > > Originally posted by *Disir*
> ...


*For example, the right to defend vs attacking civilian populations?*​
We hear this a lot (constantly) but who are the civilians?

*The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.*
In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. *When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. *The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that.* We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.*

Halevi went back to Israel, but Sharon rejected the proposal.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​


----------



## Disir (Feb 7, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?
> ...



Where? Where in Israel is that?


----------



## Disir (Feb 7, 2015)

Art__Allm said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people...
> ...



Actually the head of the NIF is a self proclaimed Zionist.  It is your NGOs that put children on the front line.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



It's discussed in the the link I posted.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 7, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > José_LA said:
> ...



The settlers are not civilians?  How can a child NOT be a civilian?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 7, 2015)

Coyote said:


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


They are not mentioned in the Geneva Accord. I would assume that their safety is the responsibility of their parents.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 8, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Is that why the UN had to invent a new rule for arab muslims to prove they were indigenous, otherwise 90% of them would be sent packing back to Syria and Iran.
> ...





 Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel are Sephardic, meaning they came from the surrounding area then you would have a devil of a job to find your 90%. Then when the DNA results are in and show that 95% of all the Jews are related to the Sephardic Jews then you might understand that they ALL have a right to live in Israel.
 But apart from that CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW says that you are wrong and just being racist towards the Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.

 And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 8, 2015)

I believe it is a simple lack of a "social program" known as a State and statism that is lacking in that region.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Feb 8, 2015)

You know what they say about "Garbage in/Garbage out", don't you?

 During the time of WW2, there was no group that called itself "Palestinian".


----------



## danielpalos (Feb 8, 2015)

Dogmaphobe said:


> You know what they say about "Garbage in/Garbage out", don't you?
> 
> During the time of WW2, there was no group that called itself "Palestinian".


so what; only the right doesn't believe simply having a State with rights can be a source of wealth, to the People of that State.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 8, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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



For indochina in the 1950's....


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

_et al,_

There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."  Don't confuse the two.  



Phoenall said:


> They are mentioned in the Geneva conventions as protected persons, much as you would like them not to be.
> 
> And there is no such thing as Geneva accords.


*(COMMENT)*

Civilians are:

*Rule 5. *Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.  *SOURCE:* ICRC IHL Customary Law Rule 5

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Definition of civilians and civilian population:  _*SOURCE:*_ Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions 
Article 50 --- Definition of civilians and civilian population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

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

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.​Protected Persons are:

Definition of protected persons​

ARTICLE 4  

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


Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.


The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of August 12, 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.



Some Palestinians think that Israeli Civilians have no protection against Palestinian attacks.  They would be wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Disir (Feb 8, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Nowhere in that link does it say that Israelis don't encounter Palestinians or there is any separation.  It's nothing more than article on price tagging.  By and large, price tagging is committed by punk ass kids like these: 
Elder Palestinians protect settlers from lynching in West Bank village - National News - Jerusalem Post

That's from 2011
 88 of Jewish Israelis oppose price tag attacks - National News - Jerusalem Post

Other
Jewish and Arab students show solidarity after price-tag fire at school - Arab-Israeli Conflict - Jerusalem Post


----------



## Coyote (Feb 8, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



This is from August of 2014, detailing concerns about increase in racism.

Israeli Teens Gripped by Virulent Racism Forward.com

On the other hand, Israel is taking this seriously - many feel this is not the society they want for themselves:
After War Israeli Schools to Teach Tolerance for Arabs - Israel Today Israel News
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/w...fter-palestinians-beating.html?pagewanted=all

On the effects of a decade long policy of strict separation: Is There Any Empathy Left In The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Parallels NPR


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> _et al,_
> 
> There is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."  Don't confuse the two.
> 
> ...


Rocco, you left this part out.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument​


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

That passage does not change a thing.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > _et al,_
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

That is in reference to a "protected person."  In fact that passage is found in Article 4 --- Definition of a Protected Person.  This passage does not nullify change the definition of "Civilians."  Nor does it give the Arab Palestinian any special dispensation to attack Israeli Civilians.

Arab Palestinian who attack Israeli civilians, are in violation of Article 7 --- Part II of the Rome Statutes; wherein --- "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> That passage does not change a thing.
> 
> ...


OK, I had to read up on that because there seemed to be a conflict. I wanted to find the reasoning behind such a conflict.

Since the occupying power is the effective government, attacks on the people are considered a domestic issue. This removes them from the purview of international law. You have posted, yourself, that the occupying power can arrest violators.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore, _et al,_

You should not be confused at all.  

"The Hague Convention of 1907 specifies that ‘territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army’. The form of administration by which an Occupying Power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called ‘military government’."   [SOURCE:  International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]

Israel has exercised ‘actual authority’ over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for almost half a century, making its presence in these areas one of the longest
sustained military occupations in modern history. [SOURCE:  International Preview of the Red Cross, Volume 94 Number 888 Winter 2012, Page 1504]



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, I had to read up on that because there seemed to be a conflict. I wanted to find the reasoning behind such a conflict.
> 
> Since the occupying power is the effective government, attacks on the people are considered a domestic issue. This removes them from the purview of international law. You have posted, yourself, that the occupying power can arrest violators.


*(COMMENT)*

The question is answered under UN Security Council Resolution 446; wherein it was "_Affirming once more t_hat the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 1/ is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem."

This is essentially the very same sort of government that Egypt maintained over the Gaza Strip; and similar to the same government the Jordanians exercised in the West Bank until annexation.

Relative to your claim that the conflict is not subject to international law because of the "effective government" defense; it makes no difference.  Non-combatants and civilians are always protected in one form or another; even in domestic wars and conflicts.


Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of *Non-International Armed Conflicts* (Protocol II), 8 June 1977.
Protection of the civilian population​

Article 13 [ Link ] -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, _et al,_
> 
> You should not be confused at all.
> 
> ...


They are talking about protecting civilians from military occupation. Are you sure that they are not talking about the occupied people?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I am absolutely sure.  This is Protocol II, and it is designed to protect Civilians against unnecessary harm.



P F Tinmore said:


> They are talking about protecting civilians from military occupation. Are you sure that they are not talking about the occupied people?


*(COMMENT)*

What I find amazing is that some Palestinians are looking for legal ways to Murder Israelis civilians; while at the same time accusing Israel of such callousness.  This is Psychopathic Behavior, often characteristic of Jihadist and Fedayeen. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, I am absolutely sure.  This is Protocol II, and it is designed to protect Civilians against unnecessary harm.
> 
> ...


Then I question why they specified this:

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​
Or this:

The definition has been put in a negative form; as it is intended to cover anyone who is ' not ' a national of the Party to the conflict or Occupying Power in whose hands he is. The Convention thus remains faithful to a recognized principle of international law: it does not interfere in a State's relations with its own nationals.​
Perhaps you could explain this. Surely they must have had a reason to include this statement.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

As I said, there is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."



P F Tinmore said:


> Then I question why they specified this:
> 
> B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​
> Or this:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The level and types of protection and the issues of treatment are not identical for a "protected person" _(under Article 4 GCIV)_ and "civilians"  _(under Rule #5 IHL CL and Article 50 of Protocol I).  _You do not treat them the same.  That is why they are under different definitions.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> As I said, there is a difference between a "protected person" and a "civilian."
> 
> ...


Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.

What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you are getting close.



P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, but I see it as the Israeli nationals are not protected persons under international law.
> 
> What makes this more confusing is that there is no such thing as an Israeli nationality.


*(COMMENT)*

The nationality makes no difference.  You are throwing more into the definition than what is there.

That is right, the Israeli is not a protected person under international law.  The Israeli is afforded the protections due any other civilian under international law.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are getting close.
> 
> ...


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

All you have to understand is that the definitions are different.  See Post #40.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

Civilians are one thing.
Protected persons are another thing.

There are international laws that cover both.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> All you have to understand is that the definitions are different.  See Post #40.
> 
> ...


You still have not explained this statement.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.​


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, yes I have --- several times.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The protections afforded "Protected Persons" do not apply to "civilians" of the Occupying Power.

"The population of the occupied Palestinian territory are accorded "protected persons" status.  Civilians of the State of Israel are not "protected persons."   Civilians of the State of Israel are protected as "civilians" under Article 68, the rules of war, and Protocols I and II.  This passage you've picked-out and focused on does not preclude the protection afforded all non-combatant "civilians."

*(QUESTION)*

What is the point you are trying to make?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Disir (Feb 8, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The first link covers a book that I don't own and have not read.  I cannot accept it as the truth and I cannot dismiss it.  The best that I can give you is to acknowledge that the book exists and that it allegedly covers a three year observation in one high school.  

The rest I will address tomorrow as I'm rushing.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 8, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, yes I have --- several times.
> 
> ...


Why did they state that the nationals of the occupying power are not protected when they are?

Did they have some surplus ink that they wanted to use up?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 8, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

They understand that there are "protections" (active measures) extended to "protected Persons" that are not required to extend to civilians.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature.  This has to do with the post battlefield and into an occupation status.  These protections do not extend to the population before they are occupied or after the occupation ends.

The limitations of a military force on what actions they can take during combat and after the cessation of hostilities cover all civilians everywhere, at all times.  

Remember, that the Geneva Convention citation you are concerned about, cover what the "Occupying Power" is required to do and the limitations they have in dealing with the people under occupation (protected persons); just as it requires and limits how the people under occupation interact with the occupation force.  In this case of the Israelis, the convention requires the Israeli act in a certain way in dealing with Arab Palestinians, and Israeli basic law deals with how the Occupying Power deals with Israeli Civilians.

International Humanitarian Law, like the Customary Rules of War and the Geneva Conventions, attempt to limit the impact of conflict relative to those entities not engaged.  It is not a tool for the Jihadist and Fedayeen to use in their Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) to justify attacks against non-combatants and civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 And just how do you arrive at that piece of information.   If there is a recognised nation of Israel accepted by the vast majority of the worlds nations as being there, and this nation of Israel issues passports to its inhabitants then there must be an Israeli nationality. Unless of course you are going to attempt to twist words again to meet with your FALSE premise


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> They understand that there are "protections" (active measures) extended to "protected Persons" that are not required to extend to civilians.
> 
> ...


The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the* post battlefield and into an occupation status.*​

Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

During all of this time the conflict never ended, and Israel never did abide by the restrictions and obligations of the rules of occupation. It is called an occupation because it is territory under military control but it has never achieved the true status of an occupation. I don't believe that Israel ever intended to be an occupation. That would be the end of their colonial project.

So, what set of rules do we use?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.


*Article 42:* Territory is considered occupied when it is *actually placed under the authority of the hostile army*.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The status of the "occupation" has nothing to do with your appraisal of the quality in the administration.  If HAMAS has control of an area, then that area is not occupied.  If the PLO or PA have control over an area, then that area is not under occupation.   It is a complex issue. 


P F Tinmore said:


> The concept is that the Convention extends protections to the "occupied population" by requiring certain actions of a humanitarian nature. This has to do with the* post battlefield and into an occupation status.*​
> 
> Israel is unique on several different levels. Israel has always been a colonial project. This began under British Military control until 1948. In 1949 the UN divided Palestine into three areas of military control. In 1967 Israel took control of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was never a “colonial project.”  It was an attempt to establish a safe and secure haven as the Jewish National Home in the part of the world that is historically associated with the point of origin for the Jewish people.  In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.

If there were deficiencies in the “occupation” since 1967, there is more than just Israel to blame for the belligerency that turned the occupation into a shambles. 

To answer the question, --- We use all the rules that are applicable. ; including:

Hague Convention
Geneva Conventions
The Additional Protocols
The Rome Statues, ICC
The IHL Customary Law on Warfare
Convention on the Law of the Sea

etc,
As previously stated, it is a complex conflict and a challenge to 21st Century temperament.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.
> 
> ...


In the near century since the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the San Remo Convention (1920), no decision has been subject to a longer complex conflict in the last 100 years.​
Indeed, those assholes really fucked up.

It is not that complex. The solution is here:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration


----------



## montelatici (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.
> 
> ...



Wrong on both counts.As usual.

Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:

*UN: We still consider Gaza “occupied” by Israel*



UN We still consider Gaza 8220 occupied 8221 by Israel View from Geneva

Israel was a colonial project to be defended by Europe as understood by the Zionists themselves.  Stop your nonsense Rocco.  Who do you think you are fooling?  Maybe your fellow Zionist looneys, but not me.

"Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey.* We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe* against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all* Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.* "

*Theodor Herzl*

*The Jewish State - Theodor Herzl s Program for Zionism*


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 9, 2015)

montelatici,  et al,

I will grant you that Israel has a strong influence over Gaza.  But that does not change the facts.  But I look at the issue from a much deeper perspective.



montelatici said:


> Wrong on both counts.As usual.
> 
> Control of the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza renders it occupied as the UN has stated:
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I will grant you that there is a conflict between the strict interpretation of the Security Council language and that of the Statutory Law (Article 42).  But I look at the consequences of interpreting that Gaza is under occupation; and the consequences of interpreting that Gaza NOT under occupation.

If you consider that the territory is under occupation, then Israel did not invade Gaza during Operation Protective Edge; following incessant rocket fire from Gaza at Israel.  
Israel cannot invade the very territory that it already occupies.  
Then there is the impact of Article 68, GCIV, in which the rocket fire itself is a violation of the Convention wherein the Arab Palestinians acted with the sole intention of doing harm the Occupying Power; serious acts against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons.​
In  Article 6§3, GCIV, a new definition for the end of occupation, one that changed the central criterion for evaluating the end of an occupation, from effective control to the exercise of governmental powers or “functions of government.”

If you consider the Article 42, Hague Convention, and Article 6§3 in play, then you can see quite clearly that the Israelis do not have "effective control" and unable to exercise governmental functions over the Gaza Strip.  ​It remains to be seen if the International Criminal Court (ICC), how they will define the status of the exercise of control.

Relative to colonial programs, and its relationship to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), 

Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,
Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Palestine to attain independence in Trust Territories,
The Israeli and the Arab Palestinian have exercised their right to self-determination; and able to freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Most Respectively,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  et al,
> 
> I will grant you that Israel has a strong influence over Gaza.  But that does not change the facts.  But I look at the issue from a much deeper perspective.
> 
> ...


Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​
Like what?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The helped the process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Considering the role of the UN in assisting the Israel to attain independence in Trust Territories,​
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You should also review (as an example) the Economic Aspects of the Commission’s Work.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The helped the process the "Steps Preparatory to Independence," and the mission statement of the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC) which coordinated the
> 
> ...


OK, when did any of that plan actually take place?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

Israel was established on 15 MAY 1948. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> A sufficient amount was accomplished for Jewish State that independence was effected.
> 
> ...


Yeah, we know that but what part did the UN do?


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 9, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

If you're asking for a detailed account, then you need to access the records:

*B. DOCUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION  A/AC.21/*
*E. DAILY AGENDA OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION  A/AC.21/Agenda/
F. SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION  A/AC.21/SR/*



P F Tinmore said:


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


*(COMMENT)*

You will note that the document record covers such issues as:

Postal
Banking
Government Communications
Police Service
Provisional Government
Your criticism of the UNPC or your insistence that they do more is somewhat interesting.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## SAYIT (Feb 9, 2015)

montelatici said:


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



Pretty arrogant considering those the UN _claims_ to be occupied say that is camel crap. In a rare, honest moment Hamas FM Mahmoud al-Zahar admitted as much:

Al-Zahar stated that while the West Bank is “still under occupation” and that all forms of resistance, including armed resistance, should be used in that territory, “popular resistance is inappropriate for the Gaza Strip.”
“Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip?” al-Zahar asked. “When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...gIGAAg&usg=AFQjCNFNz5uIm2g9aPuex-qHGI_sy2CkTg


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 9, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> If you're asking for a detailed account, then you need to access the records:
> 
> ...


They made all these plans and had all these meetings but when it came to the nitty gritty they didn't show up.

I can't see where they actually did anything.


----------



## Art__Allm (Feb 9, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel
> are Sephardic, meaning they came from the
> surrounding area then you would have a devil
> of a job to find your 90%. Then when the DNA
> ...




All people are related to each others in some degree, and Europeans came to Europe from Africa.

Does that mean that Europeans can "return" to Africa and just kick out the African population?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Does that mean you advocate the complete removal of all colonising muslims the world over and their deportation to the empty quarter in Saudi  were they belong ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 10, 2015)

montelatici said:


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







 Yet the P.A majority membership has stated that gaza has not been occupied since August 2005, now I would believe the leaders of gaza over some jumped up politicians in Washington any day


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 10, 2015)

Art__Allm said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that 60% of the Jews in Israel
> ...





 Does this mean the muslims can just walk into a country and declare that it was Islamic 2000 years ago so it is Islamic now. Because that is what they are doing in Palestine.. All because their god said he had given the world to them to live in


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Remember the very definition of "occupation" involves military control.
> 
> ...


*Israel was never a “colonial project.”*​
Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the* War Department in the Colonial Office *and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the* Ministry of the Zionist colonial office* in London.

Richard Meinertzhagen World War II

Indeed.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 10, 2015)

P F Tinmore,   _et al,_

COL Meinertzhagen was a British Intelligence Officer.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Israel was never a “colonial project.”*
> 
> Meinertzhagen was sort of a liaison officer of the* War Department in the Colonial Office *and was responsible for budget and logistics of the military government of Palestine. In June 1922, Churchill asked him to talk, because apparently information was passed from the* Ministry of the Zionist colonial office* in London.
> 
> ...


*(QUESTION)*

Who or what is the "Ministry of the Zionist colonial office?"
Do you have any reasonable evidence that Israel was a "colonial project."

*(COMMENT)*



			
				Secretary of State for the Colonies said:
			
		

> In the latter part of the nineteenth century the United Kingdom also gained control over a number of territories with the status of "protectorate". The ministerial responsibility for these territories was initially held by the Foreign Secretary. However, by the early years of the twentieth century the responsibility for each of these territories had been transferred to the Colonial Secretary as well. The League of Nations mandated territories acquired as a result of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) became a further responsibility of the Colonial Office in the aftermath of the First World War. *SOURCE: * wikipedia



Don't build your case on the basis that the funding and logistics of the Mandate for Palestine was managed by the Colonial Office.  That is just a division of work and allocation of responsibilities for colonies, dominions and mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 10, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   _et al,_
> 
> COL Meinertzhagen was a British Intelligence Officer.
> 
> ...


I don't. I knew that Israel was a colonial project long before I found out that the Zionists actually had a colonial office.

Why would they have a colonial office if was not a colonial project?


----------



## montelatici (Feb 11, 2015)

This Rocco guy is hilarious:

"*JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION (ICA)"

*

*"Ereẓ Israel

From 1896 ICA provided financial aid for independent colonists in Gederah, Ḥaderah, Nes Ẓiyyonah, and Mishmar ha-Yarden. In 1899 Baron Edmond de Rothschild transferred to ICA the colonies under his care, and those he himself had founded, providing 15,000,000 francs to finance their further development. He presided over an administrative body, the Palestine Commission, formed in Paris. In the Rothschild colonies ICA introduced new forms of cultivation and other reforms. ICA also continued its previous independent work and purchased land in Lower Galilee in order to found new settlements, Jabneel (Yemma), Bet Gan, Mesḥa (Kefar Tavor), Sejerah (Ilaniyyah), and others. Despite progress, ICA's work was continuously attacked by Zionist opponents who accused it of inept management, wasted funds, and diverse aims. During World War I Rothschild realized that impending political changes necessitated the formation of a stronger organization and established the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (*PICA) in 1923. This returned administration. ICA resumed work in Palestine after the 1929 riots, establishing Emica jointly with the Emergency Fund. Plans for draining the Ḥuleh swamps were stopped by the outbreak of war, but Emica reconstructed Be'er Toviyyah and founded other settlements: Kefar Warburg, and later Nir Banim, Sedeh Moshe, Kefar Maimon, and Lachish. In 1955 Emica became "ICA in Israel," as Israel became the main field of activity. Jointly with the Jewish Agency, ICA participated in the development of Upper Galilee and in a project to assist some 30 immigrant settlements. In addition to credit facilities for agriculture, ICA provides extensive grants for educational institutions in Israel, among them Mikveh Israel, ORT, and the agricultural faculty of the Hebrew University."

Jewish Colonization Association ICA *


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 11, 2015)

montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,

I must admit, you guys trapped me here.



montelatici said:


> This Rocco guy is hilarious:
> 
> "JEWISH COLONIZATION ASSOCIATION (ICA)"
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

When I said, (in Posting #62) that "Israel was never a “colonial project,” I just assumed you (we) understood "colonial project" to mean an official undertaking of a "Colonial Power."   I assumed that we were using the terminology in the form:  

*Colonialism* is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.
I did not expect either of you to suggest that Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) like the Jewish Colonization Association (ICA), in support of Articles 4 & 6, Mandate for Palestine, facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4 --- as a Colonial Project.  However, I recognize that there is an alternative view:

*Colonization* --- The extension of political and economic control over an area by a state whose nationals have occupied the area and usually possess organizational or technological superiority over then active population. It may consist simply in a migration of nationalist of the territory, or it may be the formal assumption of control over the territory by military or civil representatives of the dominant power.
This alternative view makes the San Remo Convention, and the fruit of the San Remo Convention, a Colonial Project.  And I know that there are many that hold this broader view.  Men like Matthew Rothschild (Israel is a Colonial Power) and M. Shahid Alam (Israel: A Failed Colonial Project) hold this alternative view.  But I do not sense (IMO) that the Principle Allied Powers, when they decided to create a Jewish National Home (San Remo 1920) for the protection and survival of the Jewish people and culture, that they were acting out of a need to dominate the Arab Palestinian --- the involves the subjugation of one people over another.   I do not believe that at all. 

I believe that, while a number of entities made mistakes relative to, and with an impact on, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict,  that the nations involved, less the Arab League Nations that took possession of large swaths of territory in 1949, were interested in Palestine as a foreign colony of an Imperial Powers involved.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## montelatici (Feb 11, 2015)

Both definitions describe the Zionist colonial project to the tee.  If you are claiming that somehow a non governmental organization cannot be the colonizer, you would have to assert that Rhodesia wasn't a colonial project because the colonization was undertaken by the British South Africa Company. You crack me up.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 11, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici,  P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I must admit, you guys trapped me here.
> 
> ...


No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.

Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 And I take it you don't see the arab muslims land grabs and invasions as colonisation then, even today they are still trying to colonise other parts of the M.E and remove the opposing religion


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling.  It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.



P F Tinmore said:


> No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.
> 
> Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.


*(COMMENT)*

 One key intention of the mandate was to:

establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, 
secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home, 
facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home. 
To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning.  So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 12, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling.  It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.
> 
> ...


Indeed, and the Palestinians vehemently opposed the colonization of their country during the mandate as they had every right to do. When the criminals have an accomplice, (Britain) it is still a crime.

The Palestinians are still fighting against this colonization as they have every right to do.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 12, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







 Only because they want to colonise the land themselves and make it part of the caliphate. That is the only reason they have for opposing the rightful migration of Jews to Palestine and the RESURECTION OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME .


----------



## montelatici (Feb 12, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling.  It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.
> 
> ...





Phoenall said:


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




How can they be colonists in their own land?  The Palestinians didn't come from another continent they were living in Palestine. 

Don't you see that more reasonable (and educated) people have agreed on this issue.


----------



## Disir (Feb 12, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



In December of 2013 Gaza flooded.  As this was happening, it was the Israelis that were putting together food packages, and blankets and sanitary items and blankets and coats and sending them to the Palestinians.  As this was happening, the accusations were made that Israel intentionally flooded Gaza by releasing water from a dam. Except there was no dam.  When supplies were sent in (like pumps), the accusation was made that Israel was taking advantage of the situation. 

Israel has always taken this seriously. There really is no other alternative.  

There are Arab Israelis that serve in the military and they don't have to.  There is Wahat Al-Salam which has been around since 1970.  Jewish families moved to Silwan. Arab families live in French Hill.  Hebrew and Arabic are the national languages.  We have to pretend that there are no Palestinian Arabs in Israel for there to be this separation where Jewish people never come into contact. 

I would say there is quite a bit of empathy.  This empathy occurs while knowing that American tax dollars pay the salaries of those Palestinians imprisoned in Israel for terrorist acts that kill Israelis. Those ones that will at some point be swapped or released back to Gaza with a celebration.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 12, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



I don't deny that there is a lot of humanitarian generosity from the Israeli people.  Yet it seems to be a split society.  There is also a lot of hate towards the Palestinians, as given by the links I posted.



> There are Arab Israelis that serve in the military and they don't have to.  There is Wahat Al-Salam which has been around since 1970.  Jewish families moved to Silwan. Arab families live in French Hill.  Hebrew and Arabic are the national languages.  We have to pretend that there are no Palestinian Arabs in Israel for there to be this separation where Jewish people never come into contact.



Prior to Civil Rights in the US there were many blacks who served in the army, even when there wasn't conscription and they did not have to.

The Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens are largely seperated from the Israeli's by walls, check points and seperate systems of roads.

The fact that Hebrew and Arabic are the national languages is a legacy of the Mandate.  There is actually a political move to make only Hebrew the national language.



> I would say there is quite a bit of empathy.  This empathy occurs while knowing that American tax dollars pay the salaries of those Palestinians imprisoned in Israel for terrorist acts that kill Israelis. Those ones that will at some point be swapped or released back to Gaza with a celebration.



And American tax dollars support the Israeli military incursions into Gaza, something which has led to huge civilian casualties and in Operation Cast Lead the use of white phosphorous in a dense civilian area.,


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The white phosphorous was used legally.  The Red Cross could find no evidence that it was used illegally.  This is why they had to back track and instead focus on "dense civilian area".  They didn't have anything. 
The Operation in Gaza-Factual and Legal Aspects

And this wouldn't be a problem if Hamas and Islamic Jihad was eradicated.  

This is not "segregation". 

This is not similar to the Civil Right's Movement in the US in any way, shape or form. I am aware that the Palestinians PR move was to align themselves with Ferguson.  That doesn't play.  

There is no rising tide of racism in Israel. This is not a situation of "language is a barrier" as I stated earlier Arabic and Hebrew are the national languages.  There are pockets of assholes.  

Lastly, Israel is a client state.  It makes zero sense for the money given to the Palestinians from this Donor country to pay the salaries of terrorists. Zero.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


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






 NO they were living as nomads travelling across the M.E. but referred to themselves as Syrians. That is until 1964 when Arafat stole the swear word to use as the new arab muslim identity, but could not pronounce it and it came out as BAALESTINIANS from BAALESTINE.    Remind you of some ancient devil that lusted after human sacrifices ?


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Ask yourself this if your people had been brutalised, abused, murdered, raped and driven from their land for 1400 years how would you feel about the people that had done it. And before you say that it was not the Palestinians remember that your claims are they have been there for 2,000 years. They are either just as much to blame for the treatment of the Jews since 627C.E. or they are very recent illegal immigrants.



 Just like the Mexicans are separated from the Americans then, and Yemen is separated from Saudi, Egypt is separated from gaza, Jordan is separated from the west bank. So your point being what exactly, that Israel is doing what other nations do without a peep out of so called unbiased concerned human beings


So you see no harm in sending $billions to fund ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM to kill Americans, yet balk at sending $millions to support the defence of Israel and the research of Defence Strategies of help to the USA.  Did you know that hamas used W.P. as a weapon of mass destruction against Israel, along with chemical and biological agents. And the UN turned a blind eye to it. Yet let Israel use it legally and every do gooder climbs on their high horse without having the full facts to hand


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 13, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




And?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 13, 2015)

Disir said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...


Using white phosphorous in populated areas is illegal.


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Not for smokescreens. Try again.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 13, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



White Phosphorous was used illegally, do you think linking to a paper published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs that denies the facts convinces anyone but brainwashed Zionnutters like yourself?

The Israeli oppression of non-Jews is more similar to South African Apartheid than the civil rights situation in the U.S.

The rest of your comments are Hasbara talking points.


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



The Red Cross even knew it wasn't used illegally.  Your repeating a lie doesn't make it any truer.  There is no apartheid.  But, thanks for the NGO talking points.


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Laws Regulating Use
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention Schedule of Chemicals, the chemical P4 is neither a toxic chemical nor a precursor to a toxic chemical. Protocol III of The Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (CCW) prohibits and restricts the use of incendiary weapons in civilian populations. It defines an incendiary weapon as "any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons"; this definition excludes "munitions which may have incidental effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems." Under that qualification, WP is not necessarily considered an "incendiary weapon" if it incidentally sets buildings on fire. The United States has ratified other protocols and amendments of the CCW, but it has not ratified Protocol III.
*Military Use*

The United States military and foreign militaries use WP in grenades, mortar shells, and artillery shells to mark targets, to provide smokescreens for troop movement, to “trace” the path of bullets, and as an incendiary. These items are classified as both smoke ammunitions and incendiary ammunitions. When burning, WP emits smoke that can screen troop movement. This same smoke can act as target markers for aircraft and as signals. WP particles can burn combustible items upon contact until it has completed its reaction with oxygen, which can last up to 15 minutes depending on the munition. As described in the article “The Fight for Fallujah” in the March-April issue of Field Artillery, U.S. military units “fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE [high explosives] to take them out.”
Federation of American Scientists White Phosphorus Fact Sheet


----------



## montelatici (Feb 13, 2015)

Your claiming using white phosphorus on civilians is legal doesn't make it so.  Israel is certainly an Apartheid state where religion is the legally separating characteristic.


----------



## Disir (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Your claiming using white phosphorus on civilians is legal doesn't make it so.  Israel is certainly an Apartheid state where religion is the legally separating characteristic.



It was used as a smoke screen.  It was legal.  You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it.  

Not an apartheid state. Not even close.  Watching you clowns sit and spin is amusing though.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 What do these pictures show but W.P. being used as it was intended, as a smokescreen. Now if hamas did not place civilians around their rocket launchers none would have been hurt


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Not if the populated areas have been made into a war zone by the other side. Read the Geneva conventions on that one point.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 Since when has South Africa been in Palestine ?    DO TRY AND KEEP ON TOPIC and not deflecting when the thread is getting away from you.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 13, 2015)

montelatici said:


> Your claiming using white phosphorus on civilians is legal doesn't make it so.  Israel is certainly an Apartheid state where religion is the legally separating characteristic.






 Not according to the highest authority in the world, so your ISLAMONAZI LIES don't stand scrutiny.


----------



## Art__Allm (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> I knew that Israel was a colonial project long before I found out that the Zionists actually had a colonial office.
> Why would they have a colonial office if was not a colonial project?



This colonial project was started by proto-Zionists, who were Christians (converts, like Disraeli) who believed in the existence of the "Jewish race" before WWI.

The British elite even believed that they are descendants of Hebrews.



> *British Israelism* (also called *Anglo-Israelism*) is a doctrine based on the hypothesis that people ofWestern European descent, particularly those in Great Britain, are the direct lineal descendants of theTen Lost Tribes of Israel. The doctrine often includes the tenet that the British Royal Family is directly descended from the line of King David.
> 
> British Israelism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



The outcome of WWI and the continuation of this war (WWII was just the continuation of WWI) was influenced by Zionism, and Zionism was originally a British projects, and these British Zionists called themselves "Christian".



> Lord Lindsay wrote in 1847: "The soil of Palestine still enjoys her sabbaths, and only waits for the return of her banished children, and the application of industry, commensurate with her agricultural capabilities, to burst once more into universal luxuriance, and be all that she ever was in the days of Solomon."[19]
> 
> In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views:
> 
> ...





> Lloyd George was determined, as early as March 1917, that Palestine should become British and that he would rely on its conquest by British troops to obtain the abrogation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
> 
> In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region.
> 
> ...



Today there are millions of Christians in the USA who call themselves "Zionists", and only dew to the support of these "useful idiots" the descendants of Khazars can keep their colonial project going on.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



Their use white phosphorous while not technically illegal, was used improperly.  They also lied initially, denying they used it at all until they were backed into a corner with evidence.  Israel s Illegal Use of White Phosphorus During Operation Cast Lead Foreign Policy Journal



> And this wouldn't be a problem if Hamas and Islamic Jihad was eradicated.
> 
> *This is not "segregation". *
> 
> This is not similar to the Civil Right's Movement in the US in any way, shape or form. I am aware that the Palestinians PR move was to align themselves with Ferguson.  That doesn't play.



Sure it is.  The Palestinians are one group and I agree that the situation in the Occupied Territories is a little different but the other group is Arab citizens of Israel and it is in that group where there are issues of enequality, racism, injustice exist as they are citizens of Israel.  There are is no question there is racism and inequality at play both in the putting forth of bills and laws and in the distribution of government resources and justice - very similar to what American blacks have lived with.

IRIN Middle East ISRAEL Address inequalities facing Arabs says ICG Israel Aid Policy Economy Education Governance Human Rights Refugees IDPs Security Urban Risk

New law dividing Christian Muslim Arabs legalizes inequality 972 Magazine

Israeli Arab supreme court justice Inequality exists in population - Breaking News - Jerusalem Post
_Supreme Court Justice Salim Jubran on late Wednesday said inequality exists between Israel's Jewish and Arab citizens despite the state's declaration of establishment that proclaims the equality of all the country's inhabitants "irrespective of religion."

Israel Radio cited Jubran as saying *there are gaps between Jews and Arabs in the sectors of education, employment and the allocation of land for infrastructure and the construction of residential areas and industrial zones. *_​
Israel s discriminatory laws are embedding racial inequality TheHill
_If passed, the bills will have a profound impact on Palestinians’ rights. The laws are carefully worded to avoid the appearance of singling out Palestinian Arab citizens, but their application is deliberately targeted and potent. For example, the “Increased Governance and Raising the Qualifying Election Threshold Bill” (from 2 percent to 4 percent) *will severely harm the ability of the three small Arab parties in Israel to be elected to the Knesset*. The “Contributors to the State Bill” *will legalize discrimination in hiring, salaries and social benefits in favor of military service graduates, thereby excluding the vast majority of Arab citizens who do not serve in the army for historical and political reasons*. More severely, the “Prawer-Begin Law” will oversee *the forced displacement of up to 70,000 Bedouin citizens in the Naqab (Negev) and the dispossession of 800,000 dunams of their land for exclusive Israeli Jewish development.*
_​High Court raps Jerusalem over postal inequality for Arabs The Times of Israel

Discrimination in Education
_According to official data released as recently as late 2004,* the Israeli government continues to allocate less money per head for Palestinian Arab children than it does for Jewish children.4 Arab schools are still overcrowded, understaffed, and sometimes unavailable*.5 On average, they offer far fewer facilities and educational opportunities than those offered to other Israeli children.6 The greatest inequalities are found in kindergartens for three- and four-year olds and in special education.7
Education is only one of several areas in which Palestinian Arab citizens face discrimination in Israel.8 *Among other things, discrimination in employment and government subsidies to local municipalities limit the personal and community resources that might otherwise be used to compensate for government failings in Arab education*_​
 Advertisement



> *There is no rising tide of racism in Israel. *This is not a situation of "language is a barrier" as I stated earlier Arabic and Hebrew are the national languages.  There are pockets of assholes.



You want to explain that to the Israeli's themselves - they seem quite concerned: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/w...tinians-in-jerusalem.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0




> Lastly, Israel is a client state.  It makes zero sense for the money given to the Palestinians from this Donor country to pay the salaries of terrorists. Zero.



It makes zero sense to give money to any of them


----------



## montelatici (Feb 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



Ahh, the old projection trick.  Phoney, stick to the subject and quit playing senile games while posting.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 13, 2015)

Guilty as sin.

"In producing the report, Forensic Architecture consulted military manuals and sought expert testimony—particularly that of weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith. However, a crucial source of information for this research was the visual material already available in the public domain: mainstream news media footage and reporters’ photographs documenting the firing of airburst white phosphorus over Fallujah and Gaza. With the help of 3D-modeling software, spatial data was extracted from the still and moving images in an effort to reconstruct both specific events and the general characteristics of the projectile. This data was ultimately integrated into a parametric model that simulated the burst of the M825 WP projectile over typical urban environments, allowing us to analyse its effects, and the resulting civilian damage that can be expected.no agreement was reached among State Parties with regard to re-opening Protocol III. Notable *opposing States were Japan, Israel, and the United States*. Given the current configuration of geopolitical power relations, the persistent opposition of such influential States means that it may be long before an amendment of Proto- col III becomes a realistic possibility.....On March 5, 2013, Forensic Architecture’s report was submitted to Israel’s High Court of Justice as a supporting doc- ument for the petition demanding the ban of the use of white phosphorus munitions in urban environments by the Israeli military. Its admission as evidence encountered strong objec- tions by the Israeli military/State Attorney, who questioned the competence of a team of architects to provide expertise on the military matters at stake in the case.

On April 25, 2013, while the question of the admissibility of the report was still being debated in court, the Israeli military issued a declaration stating that it would cease to use white phosphorus shells in populated areas—thereby yielding to the demand of the petition before the Court had to rule on it. The decision was taken “in the shadow of the court”—that is, as a consequence of a legal process but without a verdict—and, arguably, as a direct consequence of the Israeli military’s estima- tion that they could not win the case.

A senior military commander explained: “As we learned during Cast Lead, [white phosphorus] doesn’t photograph well, so we are reducing the supply and we will not purchase beyond what we already have.” Subsequently, the military informed the Court that it had ordered a “significant narrowing” of the use of these shells.”


White Phosphorus - Forensic Architecture


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 13, 2015)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is an old picture, I think from Cast Lead (I can't remember exact;y).



P F Tinmore said:


> Using white phosphorous in populated areas is illegal.


*(COMMENT)*

This was one lone event.  And it was a monumental screw-up on the part of the IDF.  I don't think the IDF ever made that mistake again.  After that incident --- the IDF began to phase out some of the WP from their inventory _(less illumination rounds) _and restricted the general use of such weapons.  White Phosphorous (WP) is not mentioned specifically in Protocol III, of the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW); but it is generally understood that it is (in most cases) prohibited as general class of indiscriminate incendiary weapons.  There are three (3) general rules pertaining to the use of such ordinance: as defined in Article 1 and 2  Protocol III: Incendiary weapons.

It is prohibited to use them against civilians.
It is also prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons unless they are being used to conceal combatants or other military objectives.
I'm sure that the IDF understands this.  I believe this one event, while wrong, does not rise to the level of a war crime.  It is not the policy of the IDF to use WP in this fashion.  In a war against insurgents and jihadist that has lasted over a quarter of a century, there are bound to be mistakes made.  This event, devastating as it is, does not mean that the IDF did not take the necessary corrective action.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



It's contradicted for use in densely population areas.  Israel had smoke bombs at it's disposal that it could have used for a smoke screen but opted not to.  Why did they lie about using it in the first place?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



Think about what you said and apply it to the Palestinian situation today.

Lots of people have been brutalized, abused, murdered and driven off from that region over the past couple of milliniums - and in those thousands of years the Jews themselves did their share of burtalizing, murdering, raping and driving away - so I don't understand your point in comparing ancient history with modern ethos.



> Just like the Mexicans are separated from the Americans then, and Yemen is separated from Saudi, Egypt is separated from gaza, Jordan is separated from the west bank. So your point being what exactly, that Israel is doing what other nations do without a peep out of so called unbiased concerned human beings



What are you talking about?



> So you see no harm in sending $billions to fund ISLAMONAZI TERRORISM to kill Americans, yet balk at sending $millions to support the defence of Israel and the research of Defence Strategies of help to the USA.  Did you know that hamas used W.P. as a weapon of mass destruction against Israel, along with chemical and biological agents. And the UN turned a blind eye to it. Yet let Israel use it legally and every do gooder climbs on their high horse without having the full facts to hand



Why send military aid to any of them?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


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



Instead of using a standard screen, Israel has now developed their own for use in gaza urban areas, WP free.  Before they used what was in their arsenal.  Sound, smoke, smell, what ever Israel uses is being attacked.....while Israel is still being attack with the most common of weapons to foreign imports smuggled to fire into Israel cities.

It is OK for Israel to be attacked but not for it to respond?


----------



## haissem123 (Feb 13, 2015)

Disir said:


> Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?


Do they both work or does one work and the other give orders?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

aris2chat said:


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



I never said it wasn't.  That is a strawman.

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Israel change so they would not have to use a legal and fairly common type of screen.  They used what they had, now they make their own.  Even now with not WP they are still being condemned for the newer formulas.
Why should Israel not try to defend or protect their soldiers that need to respond against those trying to kill them, against those that attack and try to kill Israeli civilians?  Against those to hide behind and kill their own people?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?


----------



## haissem123 (Feb 13, 2015)

i guess i am the only one who sees the irony of the jews "going" home via violence for some so called holy land master race shit right after ww2 was fought to stop that sort of shit? then the allies aid the jews war for this racist nonsense so the book can be fulfilled?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Israel does not use WP any more.  Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 13, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



You keep avoiding giving an actual answer to the question.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 13, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



it is past tense and it was not illegal

Why did hamas make their civilians targets of urban warfare?  Why did hamas engage in attacking Israel or starting a war they could not win?  Why did hamas sacrifice their own people by provoking Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 13, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


The blockade was there first.

A blockade is an act of war.


----------



## montelatici (Feb 13, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Like all occupied/colonized people, their only hope is that they will eventually win.  The Algerians, the non-white South Africans, the non-white Rhodesians, the Indians, the  Vietnamese etc.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 14, 2015)

montelatici said:


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






 Not me that is bringing in OFF TOPIC reports to try and deflect the thread. As I said since when has South Africa been in Palestine, or Palestine in South Africa.   If you cant keep to the Israeli/Palestine topic then go somewhere else.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 14, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...





 No the blockade went on in 2007 the attacks on Israel started in August 2005. The same time that Israel gave in to the Palestinian demands that Oslo 2 be implemented so that peace talks could be held. Palestinian he talk with forked tongue and out of backside.
 A rocket attack is an act of war, so the blockade was in answer to those many thousands of acts of war.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 14, 2015)

montelatici said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 They lost when they made the first terrorist attack on unarmed Jews, now they face constant humiliation and deprevation because they are too pig headed to accept reality


----------



## Dante (Feb 14, 2015)

José_LA said:


> Some of you may remember*...*


Leon Klinghoffer


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 14, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...


Not true. Try again.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling.  It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.
> 
> ...


When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.


----------



## Mindful (Feb 15, 2015)

Hossfly said:


> José_LA said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you may remember the thread I created last year about the dehumanization of the palestinian people in which I explained how WWII represented a huge paradigm shift in the way western states defined themselves and the human value assigned to the world Jewry and the native inhabitants of Palestine.
> ...



I've never read such crap. More Jew hangups.

Prominent ethnic identity? Countries like Britain and Germany positively encourage it.


----------



## José (Feb 15, 2015)

> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> And, quite frankly, when a nation under attack by rocket fire or other artillary *they have the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary*. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.



You've just proved the entire point of this thread for me.

You believe the children and grandchildren of the european settlers who didn't have any historical right to consider Palestine their homeland, to destroy the ethnic composition of Palestine without the consent of the native population let alone split their homeland, impose a jewish state on them and kept them corraled in ethnic enclaves, you believe they have the right to continue to deny the birthright of the palestinian people to live in 70% of their homeland and murder them if they fight to break free from the enclaves and end their exile.

You *DEFINITELY* do not perceive the palestinian people as a group of human beings entitled to the same set of rights as Ruby Bridges.

You *DEFINITELY* assimilated the dehumanising paradigm through which the society you were born into (the United States of the second half of the 20th century) perceive the native people of Palestine.

I rest my case.


----------



## RoccoR (Feb 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.



P F Tinmore said:


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





P F Tinmore said:


> When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.


*(COMMENT)*

This is a bit disingenuous.  The UK participation was conditional.  The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("*could not alone* implement any plan not accepted by both sides)."  It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate.  It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.”  _*SOURCE: *_   Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​
3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”.  *SOURCE:*   UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION  Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​


P F Tinmore said:


> The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.


*(COMMENT)*

This is debatable.  Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence.  But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I ---  Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​
AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process.  As noted in *GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III)* Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949):   "_Recalling_ its *resolutions of 29 November 1947* 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the _ad hoc_ Political Committee *in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,*" the process was completed by the people of Israel.



P F Tinmore said:


> The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.
> 
> Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.


*(COMMENT)*

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.



P F Tinmore said:


> Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.


*(COMMENT)*

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word.  Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling.  It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.
> 
> ...



depends on what the meaning of "is" is.......


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Disir said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Disir said:
> ...



The ferguson shooting was a justified kill.  If the palestinian PR want to play games then Israeli response is justified.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Art__Allm said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I knew that Israel was a colonial project long before I found out that the Zionists actually had a colonial office.
> ...



Parliamentary oath had to as a christian, at that time.  Disraeli tried to get the oath change to permit jews to take office.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Coyote said:


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



not generally used at night.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly.  Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare.  Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced?  Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas?  Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony.  When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 15, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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







Blockade of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 The *blockades of the Gaza Strip* refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel from 2007 to present.

  Following the takeover, Egypt and Israel largely sealed their border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah had fled and was no longer providing security on the Palestinian side.[4]

 Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on its cities and to prevent Hamas from obtaining other weapon




 So yes it is TRUE and history backs up my post


----------



## abu afak (Feb 15, 2015)

José_LA said:


> You've just proved the entire point of this thread for me.
> 
> You believe the children and grandchildren of the european settlers who didn't have any historical right to consider Palestine their homeland, to destroy the ethnic composition of Palestine without the consent of the native population let alone split their homeland, impose a jewish state on them and kept them corraled in ethnic enclaves, you believe they have the right to continue to deny the birthright of the palestinian people to live in 70% of their homeland and murder them if they fight to break free from the enclaves and end their exile.
> 
> ...


Whatever you say Che.
But How about answering my post #24 about the True "paradigm".
You WHIFFED!'



abu afak said:


> If anything, 'Palestinians' are unique in the post-WWII scene, in being unabsorbed by their surrounding Arab Brothers. Denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs..
> But Pampered in getting their own Refugee Agency/UNRWA that has devoured 80% of the World/UN refugee resource due to political (yes, I believe bias as well).
> So that now there are 5 Million palestinian 'refugees', up from 700K in 1948.
> 3rd, 4th Gen and anyone intermarried with non-Palestinians.
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 15, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


The *Israel−Gaza barrier* is a border barrier first constructed by Israel in 1994 between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The barrier was extended in 2005 to cover the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (the Egypt-Gaza barrier).

For the Palestinians, it is an element of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and an instrument to throttle the movement of Palestinians between West Bank and Gaza.

The barrier was completed in 1996.

Israel Gaza barrier - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



At the time it was NOT used correctly.  It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over.  You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



All you are doing is dodging the question and then trying to deflect onto other things like Hamas.  We talk about past tense ALL THE TIME.

So if something is not technically illegal is ok in your book?  Therefore, you are ok with the use of white phosphorous against civilians?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...









really, now who is lying?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 15, 2015)

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Coyote said:


> So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?



I understand the use.  What I think is not relevant.  The facts and the law are.  Israel did nothing wrong in the use of the screens.  Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP.  Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.
Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up.  Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.
Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians.  They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting.  They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP?  They have used them for years.  Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 15, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



certainly does not look like high noon


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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





 They all call for THE RESURECTION OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME IN PALESTINE.    As in a Jewish Nation as that is the only way to make it safe. The colonisers were the arab muslims who saw the work the Jews put into the land to make it fertile and decided to migrate and steal the land once it was profitable.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...






W.P has two military uses the first is to create a smokescreen, the second is to illuminate the battlefield at night so that the enemy can be more easily seen.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 16, 2015)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I'm not sure I agree.
> 
> ...


Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 16, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






When did that become international law then,   And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 16, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Not true. Try again.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you?  You will excuse it endlessly.  Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza *and you can't bring yourself to condemn it.  *Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies.  But you still defend it.  Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?


----------



## Coyote (Feb 16, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?
> ...



Israel could have used far LESS lethal smoke bombs to create screens.

Yes or no?



> Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP.  Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.



They could have used far less lethal means to BEGIN WITH.  They ALREADY HAD far less lethal formulas.

I AM NOT arguing that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself against Hamas - so stop with that strawman.



> Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up.  Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.



Calling the damage that WP causes to human flesh something Hamas "gripes about" is truly pathetic.  WP is well recognized as a weapon to not use in urban warfare - enought that there are guidelines pertaining to it.

And WP was NOT all they had.  



> Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians.  They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
> Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting.  They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
> Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP?  They have used them for years.  Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.



And again, you're deflecting.  I believe this is what others commonly call "Tu quoque" fallacy:   _but but what about Hamas?_

White phosphorus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
*Effects on people*

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

*I*njuries from white phosphorus.[91][92]
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. *Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure*.[93] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.

*Smoke inhalation*
Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) has the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m3, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m3.[94]

*Oral ingestion*
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[95] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[93] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[95] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

*Fume inhalation*
Long term inhalation of derivative fumes causes a condition called phossy jaw or osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is a painful, debilitating and ultimately lethal condition that afflicted factory workers involved with the manufacture of matches that contained white phosphorus. The mechanism for necrosis is clot formation leading to bone ischaemia or infarction, leading to the putrid rotting of the bone of the lower jaw. For this reason, the Berne Convention (1906) was enacted to forbid the manufacture, sale or purchase of matches containing white phosphorus. This condition may also be caused by high doses of lead, cadmium and bisphosphonate based cancer drugs.​
This isn't asthma caused by smoke inhalation.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Whats not true as before 1960 no arab muslims would allow themselves to be called Palestinians, it was an insult. The arab muslims in Palestine called themselves Syrians not Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 Any comment on the use of W.P by hamas then, or their use of illegal chemical and biological agents in the rockets fired at Israeli children. You cant bring yourself to condemn the acts of cowardice and war crimes committed by the Palestinians daily can you.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...






 One point you are constantly refusing to accept and take into consideration is that it is the Palestinians that have elected to fight a war from civilian areas even though nearly half of gaza in unoccupied and open land. The Israeli's used W.P in two roles  that were both legal, one as a smoke screen the other to light up the terrorist rocket launchers. If the Palestinian civilians are too stupid to get out of the way, or are forced to act as human shields then any injuries are their own fault.

 BUT  rather than place the blame were it belongs you constantly blame the Jews for the actions of the Palestinians.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Some did but it doesn't matter. The 1925 citizenship order said they were Palestinian. That was their legal status.


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 17, 2015)

P F Tinmore said:


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






 Try reading the order again and you will see they were BRITISH MANDATE FOR PALESTINE citizens. There was no nation of Palestine, no Palestinian government and the people were not organised enough to proclaim independence. So it fell to the MANDATE to be the government.   


 Keep trying and one day you might get it right


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 17, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I condemn hate and terrorism.  I condemn abuse of women and children.
Why is hamas using WP but you don't condemn them, only Israel.  Israel has willingly changed their screens.  They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.
It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.
When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal.  Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.  You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.
You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality?  What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel?  The violence in Europe?
There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas.  For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 17, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



I've condemned Hamas for many things.  If they are using WP in densely populated areas then please, link to it and I will certainly condemn it.  



> Israel has willingly changed their screens.  They have changed their smoke grenades used for crowd control.



That avoids the issue.  Sure.  They "willingly" changed thier methods.  AFTER a huge expose of the use of WP in dense urban areas.  AFTER they lied about even using it.  Why is that truly commendable?  



> It does not matter what they do to avoid major injuries or casualties, you still want a condemnation of their actions.



Sure.  It does matter.  But did you read about what WP does to the human body?  Have you read how it is specifically contraindicated for use in urban zones?  You did read that part right?  I get the feeling that Israel can behave like ISIS and you would still refuse to condemn anything they do or find some way to make excuses and exonerate them.

WP versus human flesh is horrific.  Instead of condemning it, you turn around and blame the victims.  Why were they out there?  Why weren't they taking shelter?  If you read the accounts of the conflict - there was considerable conflicting information on where to go to be safe.  Homes were hit, people had to go somewhere.  People had to somenow continue to try and do their normal day to day living - like getting food, water, medical help.  But hey - according to you it's their fault if they got burned by WP, not Israel's fault for using WP in a way that is internationally contraindicated and you manage to use this to make Israel out to be some sort of hero for "willingly" giving it up.  They could have used those alternate methods of smoke screens at that time but they did not.  



> When Israel had and used WP screens it was not illegal.  Now that they don't use them any more you want a condemnation of the legal use.



There are a lot of things that are technically legal.  So, even though it is SPECIFICALLY contraindicated for use in dense urban populations - there is no question about that - it's ok by you to use it in a dense urban population (at least by Israel) because it's "legal"....?  

Capital punishment is legal.
Does that mean it's ok to kill people by burning them alive?
By hanging them til they choke to death?
Because it's "legal"?



> You won't condemn hamas for their use of WP, attacks on civilians, acts of war against Israel, inciting of hate and violence against Israel, he call for lone wolf stabbing, running over with a car or bombing of Israelis, illegally smuggling weapons from Iran into gaza, the tunneling into Israel to carry out killings and kidnappings.



I've condemned Hamas many times.  I've certainly never made excuses for their terrorism against innocent civilians.  You're just using this to excuse Israel's use of WP against civilians.



> You want a condemnation of something in the past but you won't do the same for what hamas is still doing.
> What about condemning every other terrorist group in the region and the hate and persecution of minorities, of the mass murdering and brutality?  What of the blaming and threats against the US and Israel?  The violence in Europe?
> There is so much to condemn and you are hung up on something in the past.
> How about condemning hamas for bringing warfare to their urban areas.  For forcing Israel into urban warfare with conventional weapons.



Half the stuff we argue about here is IN THE PAST.

There is much to condemn indeed but you can not bring yourself to condemn Israel for anything, even when they are wrong.  You deflect, redirect, engage in the "but but Hamas" fallacy.  Sometimes Israel is wrong - way wrong.  And using WP, lying about it was wrong.  Their changing that use is good, but hardly heroic as you make it sound.  Their feet were held to the fire over it's use.  You want to compare Hamas to Israel.  Hamas is a terrorist organization.  Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



BUT.

You will never blame Israel, even when they are wrong will you?

WP is legal, but contraindicated for use in dense urban areas.

You blame the victims.

Figures.

Do you cheer when you see people burned up with WP?  It's legal after all.


----------



## Coyote (Feb 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



How can I comment on something when you provide no links?


----------



## Disir (Feb 17, 2015)

haissem123 said:


> Disir said:
> 
> 
> > Except there is no dehumanization of the Palestinian people, but do go on. In fact, don't you find it rather odd that there is no mention on these boards of the factories that Palestinians and Israelis work at.  Can you tell me why that is?
> ...



They both work.  :/


----------



## P F Tinmore (Feb 17, 2015)

Phoenall said:


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


Not true. The mandate was not a country. It had no citizens.


----------



## aris2chat (Feb 17, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



 Advertisement

Hamas now firing phosphorus-filled mortar shells into Israel - World Tribune World Tribune

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News Gazans shooting white phosphorus shells into Israel. UN silent.



>>The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries… “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”… Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.<<


----------



## Coyote (Feb 17, 2015)

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > aris2chat said:
> ...



Were they fired into densely populated areas?



> >>The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally. The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using white phosphorus, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries… “In some of the strikes in Gaza it’s pretty clear that phosphorus was used,” Herby told The Associated Press. “But it’s not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it’s being used in any other way.”… Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.<<



And more:

_*However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza,* where Palestinian health officials say more than 900 people have been killed and 4,250 wounded since Israel launched its offensive late last month. Israel says the operation aims to halt years of Palestinian rocket attacks over the border._​Israel prevented the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations as well as journalists from accessing Gaza.

United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
_*White phosphorus allegations*

The report says that Israeli forces were "systematically reckless" in determining the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas.[79] The writers highlighted the Israeli attack on the UN Relief and Works Agency compound in Gaza City on 15 January, the attack on the Al Quds hospital, and the attack on the Al Wafa hospital, each of which involved using white phosphorus. They described its use as disproportionate or excessive under international law. More generally, the UN report recommended that "serious consideration should be given to banning the use of white phosphorus in built-up areas".[80]_​High Court recommends IDF terminate all use of white phosphorous - Defense - Jerusalem Post
_In a 2012 Human Rights Watch report on the issue, the organization said WP has killed and injured civilians and destroyed infrastructure both in Gaza and when used by the US in Afghanistan._

_Exposure to the substance can have particularly grisly effects – *including chemical burns down to the bone and wounds that can reignite days later when the bandages are removed, *said HRW.

In the 2009 Gaza war, white phosphorus caused accidental damage to a UN facility and in one instance its misuse lead the IDF to discipline one of its commanders...

...Sfard and attorney Emily Schaeffer fought hard to go beyond the IDF’s new “limited” use policy and pushed the court to prohibit the IDF from using it *on the basis that it is too dangerous, indiscriminate and uncontrollable once it is used.*

Sfard told The Jerusalem Post that he “praises the IDF’s change in policy,” which he believed was at least partly a result of pressure from the petition, and said that the military would likely “not use white phosphorus... in future hostilities to the extent it did during Operation Cast Lead.”

But, he said, the IDF’s exception to the policy was too broad.

As soon as “hostilities broke out again,” Sfard said, the IDF was likely to decide to return to the use of WP, and that it would be both practically impossible and too emotionally charged to try and go to court to get the IDF to stop and “tie its hand in the middle of combat.”

Based on that prediction, he said, it was “important for the High Court to prohibit white phosphorus now when things are relatively calm.”
_​_Military rejects horrific results of use of white phosphorus in Operation Cast Lead B Tselem_

_According to B'Tselem's research, no precise details exist regarding the number of persons who were killed or injured by white phosphorus during the operation, in part because physicians in hospitals in Gaza did not know how to diagnose the cause of injury, and due to incomplete medical documentation during the military operation, which resulted from the great load placed on the hospitals. Human Rights Watch investigated six cases and *found that at least thirteen Palestinians had been killed by phosphorus, among them four women and seven children, including a one-year-old infant.* In addition, the use of phosphorus caused extensive damage to property. There is documentation of fires throughout the Gaza Strip that resulted from the use of phosphorus in the bombing of houses, UN facilities, and humanitarian-aid warehouses._​


----------



## Phoenall (Feb 18, 2015)

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 Here you go

Hamas now firing phosphorus-filled mortar shells into Israel - World Tribune World Tribune



Officials said Hamas and its Palestinian militia allies have acquired or
produced hundreds of phosphorus shells in an effort to increase Israeli
casualties. They said the shells were designed to spark fires and destroy
homes and fields.


Mortar shells fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel contained the internationally prohibited substance white phosphorus, according to an Israeli official.

“We first saw evidence of phosphorus shells in 2011, but we believe that there might have been a decision to increase such attacks,” an official said.



 And remember that when Israel used it as a smoke screen or to illuminate it was LEGAL. When hamas uses it to target children it is a war crime. So why do you defend the Palestinians war crimes and yet condemn the legal use of weapons by Israel to defend against Palestinian war crimes. After seeing the tunnels underneath Israeli schools packed with H.E. any decent human being would be condemning the Palestinians in the highest terms and demanding the UN take military action against the terrorists in Palestine.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

The first part of this OP clearly demonstrated that starting at the end of WWII western societies and the average western citizen represented here by Coyote's posts and treads, started to fully humanize racial minorities in western countries and the world in general, dehumanize the native population of palestine and superhumanize the jewish people.

These three groups of human beings are iconographically represented below:

*RUBY BRIDGES' UNIVERSE*











A group of human beings who, after being brutalised by a white ethnocracy for more than 300 years, finally had their full humanity completely restored after WWII.

Once in possession of the same humanity as the anglo americans portrayed here:






they could no longer be forced to study in segregated schools, let alone, kept in racial enclaves like reservations or Gaza, surrounded by white american soldiers with orders to shoot any tresspasser.

*PALESTINIANS' UNIVERSE*











A group of human beings, who despite being dehumanized by the late Ottoman Empire and later by the british Empire for decades prior to WWII, only achieved a status of full "subhumanity" in the eyes of westerners after the last major military confrontration on european soil.

Having been devoided after WWII of the set of rights that characterizes full human beings, the same western societies and peoples that started feeling disgusted by the treatment given to Ruby Bridges' people and native americans for centuries began considering the same brutalization of the native people of palestine as "socially acceptable".



> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> Then, I'd defend the legally and historically defined borders of my nation with *lethal force*.
> 
> Would you build a wall?



*THE JEWISH UNIVERSE*





A group of human beings who were "superhumanized", who were given an extra set of "rights" to dehumanize others. The superhumanization of the jewish people, as we all know, was a direct consequence of the the collective sense of guilty generated by the events of WWII.

In possession of this additional set of "rights" the jewish people was allowed to do to the native people of Palestine what the anglo family/anglo society depicted above could not even think of doing to the now fully humanized Ruby Bridges anymore:






Herding them into ethnic enclaves, surrounding the enclaves with fences and machine gun nests and cynically calling the arrest, shooting and murder of palestinians trying to exercise their birthright to move freeely in their own historical homeland in a peaceful, non-violent manner, "self-defence".



> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> they have *the right to defend their citizens by what ever means necessary*. That is the right of any nation. I'm not sure why you think it would mean any nation but Israel.



The use of the world Universe to characterise the set of rights attributed to each of these groups, seems strange at first, but it described perfectly the lifelong indoctrination westerners like Coyote are subjeted to.

She really perceives the rights of Ruby Bridges and the natives of Palestine as two different, unrelated subjects, as if they were not equally human beings, equally members of peoples with a historic presence in North America and Palestine, equally subjugated by a white and a jewish racial dictatorship respectivelly and therefore equally entitled to exactly the same rights.

Bridges and Palestinians, as far as their inherent, inalienable human rights are concerned, are so to speak totally isolated, self-contained "universes" in Coyote's mind and the average westerner's, two completelly separate issues.

This perceived "separation", "unrelatedness" between Ruby's set of natural rights and the set of natural rights Palestinians are entitled to is precisely what allows Coyote to celebrate the peaceful dismantlement of the last remnants of the white racial dictatorship created by the british in North America and at the same time
justify the physical elimination of the native people of Palestine by the jewish racial dictatorship created in Palestine by european Jews without even noticing the paroxistic incoherence of her two views.

But if you think that celebrating the right of Ruby Bridges to study in a white school and justifying the confinement of the palestinan people into ethnic enclaves in Palestine is contradictory enough, absurd enough, crazy enough you're in for a big surprise.

Coyote and the average westerner not only think the native people of Palestine are entitled to only a fraction of the rights entitled by the native people of America and Ruby Bridges.

You're about to find out that driven by the social paradigms created by WWII they believe that foreigners from India and China who never set foot in America or Britain have more right to live in Britain and America and become british/american citizens than the palestinian people to live and be treated as equals in their
historic homeland.

Fasten your seatbelts because things are about to get even nuttier than "just" the celebration of Ruby Bridges studying in a white school and the "justification" of Palestinians being murdered by the jewish racial dictatorship for the "crime" of moving about their homeland.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

What follows is a post created by Coyote justifying the destruction of Britain's non supremacist ethnic composition by the mass immigration of Indians, Pakistanis, etc, etc...

Individuals whose grandparents, parents and sometimes even themselves had absolutely no historical right to call Britain their homeland.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

So? They are still Brits. Skin color doesn't change that.





















White British pupils will be outnumbered in English state schools by 2037, report claims


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

What follows now is an except of a debate between templarkormac and Coyote where she accuses the US government of racism for simply exercising its sovereign right to control immigration and preserving its non-suprecist ethnic makeup.

She considers the sovereign, absolutely non-supremacist act of prohibiting chinese, african and indian immigration, "damning and shameful periods in US history". 

Reminding the readers of the obvious fact that Coyote was reffering to asian and african foreign nationals who, unlike the Palestinian people, didn't have the slightest claim to America as their historical homeland and therefore no inherent, natural right to move to America and become US citizens.

Just listen (read):



> I would point out that in 1882, President Chester A. Arthur signed a law which banned all immigration by Chinese laborers.
> 
> It then placed severe restrictions on immigration from select countries in Africa and from India.
> 
> *TEMPLARKORMAC*





> Yes, and those were some *pretty damning and shameful periods in our history* weren't they?
> 
> Forget our own history? Not in the least. We should not forget it and we should not be repeating it or using *it's injustices* to support further injustices.
> 
> COYOTE



What makes you support one or the other?


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

You have just witnessed something absolutely surreal, a nuttery that seems to come straight out of a play of the Theater of the Absurd.

The same person who justifies the forced confinement of the palestinian people in 20% of their homeland and their arrest or murder if they "trespass" the limits of the enclave is now accusing America of ethnic supremacism for simply protecting its racial makeup regarding foreigners with no right to live in America.

Ruby Bridges, native americans and the palestinian people were/are the historical victims of two supremacist states. There is absolutely no reason at all, at least if you reject dehumanization, if you believe to be self-evident that all men are created equal, to condemn the former and justify the latter.

If you think it is insane enough to support the peaceful dismantlement of a white ethnocracy and the violent perpetuation of a jewish one you ain't seen nothing yet.

According to the social paradigms that shaped Coyote's mind and most people in the West and the world, not only this woman has the right now to study in any american school, college, institute she desires:






while this group of human beings shouldn't even have the right to move anywhere they want in their homeland:






Not only this, but even individuals going about their businessess on the streets of Beijing without a single ancestor who has ever set foot on the American continent:






have more right to live in the USA than these human beings enduring a forced confinement and exile just a few miles from where their parents and grandparents were born:






These individuals in New Dheli, Madras and Bombay:






have more right to live in Britain than these two human beings:






have to live in their own hometowns of Ybna and Askalon/Ashkhelon respectively.

If America or Britain dares to invoke their right to preserve their non supremacist racial composition by controlling immigration, the same person who advocates the use of lethal force against palestinians will undoubtedly call it an "*injustice*", a "*damning and shameful period*" in America's and Britain's history.

Don't get me wrong... There was an awful lot of supremacism and dehumanization going on in America in the previous centuries but *NONE OF IT DIRECTED AGAINST WOULD BE IMMIGRANTS*, *AGAINST NON WHITES RESIDING ABROAD*.

Meanwhile, the supremacist state that murders the very same people it should treat as citizens for the "crime" of moving about their homeland is romanticized by Coyote as being a "benevolent" society and "morally superior" to the natives it arrests, shoots and murders as you can see for yourselves in the following quote:



> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> I agree. And I think it's important remember that this poisonous message of hate was also being taught in Israel and it wasn't until violence against Arab citizens became unacceptably brutal that *Israel decided this was not the society they wanted to be*. *Palestinians aren't there yet*.
> 
> What the Palestinian Authority Thinks Concerning a Palestinians State in the WB



If treating Ruby Bridges and Palestinians, both victims of dehumanizing political entities radically different, advocating Ruby Bridges' enfranchisement and the physical elimination of Palestinians, were not unbelievably contradictory, now with chinese and Indians having more right to live in the US and Britain than
Palestinians in Palestine we enter the realm of psychiatry, of the clinically insane.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

However anyone who has ever read Coyote's posts is immediately struck by their lucidity,  their articulated, concatenated, generally well-thought out nature.

They sound like anything but the ravings of a lunatic.

So what drives a reasonable lady like Coyote to advocate the crazy idea that people from India and China without a single american ancestor since Adam and Eve or darwinian primate have more right to live in Britain and America than those two people in their hometowns of Ybna and Askalon?

The reason why, according to Coyote, anglo americans do not have the right to dehumanize Ruby Bridges the way Jews dehumanize Palestinians can be explained by the first 3 social paradigms created after WWII and I'll quote them from my OP:

*1 - Total racial equality among all racial groups of a given country.

2 - The super humanization of the jewish people.

3 - The dehumanization of the palestinian people.*

But to understand why Coyote denies Britain and America their right to preserve their non supremacist racial composition and advocates the right of chinese and Indian citizens to become citizens of a land to which they have no ties we have to resort to the fourth and last of the social paradigm of WWII:

*4 - The redefinition of western countries as multi-racial nations without a predominant ethnic identity*

Western countries were redefined as nations without any racial, ethnic identity and immigration laws were changed allowing massive non-white immigration into the US and Europe.

José

Dehumanization: Palestinians' most powerful enemy

Coyote grew up in post-WWII America. This society taught her the fourth paradigm according to which America was never meant to be an european, white majority country...

The white majority the country had for more than 3 years was the result of an "accident of History" at best or just plain racism at worst. She sees the first 3 centuries of America as a multi-racial country denying its true nature, imposing an "artificial" white majority though immigration control.

So Coyote looks upon the measures 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century America took to protect its racial composition from non-white immigration as inherently "racist" even though they never harmed a single human being that could be considered even remotely native to North America.

The fourth paradigm fully explains why Coyote like so many westerners is shocked and appalled by America merely protecting its racial makeup without any supremacism while the first 3 explains why she has no problem with a jewish racial dictatorship murdering the people of the land.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

I hope this thread helped the readers understand the brutal impact that these social paradigm have our own minds, the minds of people like us, like Coyote, like the average western citizen and even non-westerners since they are also global paradigms nowadays.

These paradigms shape and control our ways of thinking in such a way that the only analogy that makes justice to their tremendous power is a puppeteer manipulating his puppet:


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

abu afak said:


> UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem;


UNRWA is an aid agency. They have no authority to find solutions to the problem.

It is the UNCCP that is charged with finding a solution based on Resolution 194.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.


Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the settler colonial occupation.

You cannot separate them out as innocent civilians.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

José said:


> What follows is a post created by Coyote justifying the destruction of Britain's non supremacist ethnic composition by the mass immigration of Indians, Pakistanis, etc, etc...
> 
> Individuals whose grandparents, parents and sometimes even themselves had absolutely no historical right to call Britain their homeland.









 OF TOPIC SPAM


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> No the blockade went on in 2007 the attacks on Israel started in August 2005.


Israel was attacking Gaza before 2005.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem;
> ...









 Try reading their remit again and see that they were set up to assist refugees assimilate into other societies. They failed because arab society refused to allow then to assimilate, and the refugees refused to assimilate meaning they were refugees until Israel was destroyed.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > No the blockade went on in 2007 the attacks on Israel started in August 2005.
> ...









 No Israel was responding to terrorst attacks before then, it was when the arab muslims declared war again that Israel started to respond heavy handedly


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > abu afak said:
> ...


Quote passage with link?


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 The High Commission is mandated to help refugees get on with their lives as quickly as possible,* and works to settle them rapidly, most frequently in countries other than those they fled.* UNRWA policy, however, states that the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the 1948 war, plus all their descendants, are to be considered refugees until a just and durable solution can be found by political actors. UNRWA was specifically designed not to proscribe how the outcome of an agreement would take shape


UNRWA - Wikipedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> UNRWA policy, however, states that the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the 1948 war, plus all their descendants, are to be considered refugees until a just and durable solution can be found by political actors. *UNRWA was specifically designed not to proscribe how the outcome of an agreement would take shape*


That is what I said. Thank you.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 10, 2016)

These posts are a mess.  The premise seems to be that certain types of "segregation" are immoral and certain types are morally acceptable.  But the objective parameters of these dividing lines are not clear.  

Segregation of citizens based on ethnicity is immoral, but immigration based on ethnicity is not immoral?
"Racial enclaves" are immoral, but self-determining, self-governing nation States are not immoral?
Fences are immoral, well, sometimes?
Some people seem to have birthrights?
One group is portrayed as dehumanized, peaceful and non-violent and the other group is portrayed superhuman violent murderers.  (The whole "superhumanized Jews who have extra rights" is just a re-wording of the typical antisemitic "chosen people" canard.)

So, José , if you want to discuss this, please come up with a clear, objective outline of acceptable and non-acceptable "segregation" with no mention of ethnicity so the rest of us can try to grasp what it is you are trying to say.


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I just want to make it clear, as I did in Posting #46, that whether we are talking about an International Armed Conflict (IAC - Protocol I to GCIV, Article 51) --- or --- a Non-International Armed Conflict (NAIC - Protocol II to GCIV, Article 13) the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) on the matter of protections for the civilian population is exactly the same.

ICRC Customary IHL:

*Rule 1. *The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.

*Rule 2. *Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.​
*Remember:*   It is criminal behavior for Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to:

•  Commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power,
•  Commit acts of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power,
•  Commit intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons,​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

But the greater point is the theme to which you have demonstrated here.  You are actively trying to find ways to legally attack civilians.  This, in itself, is an encouragement  violence.  What gets me is that ALL Arab Palestinians know instinctively that it is wrong.   The HoAP (as well as yourself) know that propaganda for war is prohibited by law; just as advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence is prohibited by law.  (Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)

Both in the general context, where Palestinian Parents send their children to Summer Camps.  Where these Camps teach the child to be a suicide bomber.  Where the general population supports a general education system that promotes the concept that Jihad and Arm Struggle are the means to achieve political and diplomatic goals.   In terms of moral culpability, the people the set the conditions for attacks against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature, the advocate is just as culpable. Incitement of these acts _(kidnapping and murder, ambushes and bombings, hijackings and hostage taking, etc)_ intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.  And the Arab Palestinian has made it perfectly clear that by policy, threats and deeds that if they ever came to control the Jewish National Home (JNH), the HoAP would begin the end (dismantalment) of all that has been accomplished.

Neighter HAMAS or Fatah are committed to establishing a peaceful settlements.  Hell, they cannot even agree amoung themselves what "Palestine, The State of," actually means.  All they can agree on is violence.  And those that attempt to incite or encourage violence are just as culpable as the perpetrators.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Where the general population supports a general education system that promotes the concept that Jihad and Arm Struggle are the means to achieve political and diplomatic goals.


What about those in defense of their country?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I just want to make it clear, as I did in Posting #46, that whether we are talking about an International Armed Conflict (IAC - Protocol I to GCIV, Article 51) --- or --- a Non-International Armed Conflict (NAIC - Protocol II to GCIV, Article 13) the original intent of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) on the matter of protections for the civilian population is exactly the same.
> 
> ...


Still shoveling Israeli shit, I see.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> You are actively trying to find ways to legally attack civilians.  This, in itself, is an encouragement  violence.



THANK YOU!


----------



## Shusha (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Still shoveling Israeli shit, I see.



Translation:  I have no reasonable counter-argument.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > UNRWA policy, however, states that the Palestinian Arabs who fled from Israel in the course of the 1948 war, plus all their descendants, are to be considered refugees until a just and durable solution can be found by political actors. *UNRWA was specifically designed not to proscribe how the outcome of an agreement would take shape*
> ...






 AND IT MEANS THEY HAD TO RELOCATE THE REFUGEES IN OTHER NATIONS, WHICH THEY FAIL TO DO


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Where the general population supports a general education system that promotes the concept that Jihad and Arm Struggle are the means to achieve political and diplomatic goals.
> ...









 Then why are they in Israel when their country is Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Iraq, Iran etc ?


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Is there a country there?  What country are you citing?



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Where the general population supports a general education system that promotes the concept that Jihad and Arm Struggle are the means to achieve political and diplomatic goals.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  I understand it to be a given, that nothing I say or present, whether "international law" or treaty law, will only elicit the response that I am:   "shoveling Israeli shit."  I get it!  The  you believe that the Palestinians are above the GCIV and the ICCPR or the Charter.​
But what I would like to ask is:

•  Will there ever com a time in which the Palestinians will be subject to the Law?​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


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








 So now the Geneva conventions are ISRAELI SHIT ?    Sums up your whole reason for being here to attack the Jews


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> • Will there ever come a time in which the Palestinians will be subject to the Law?


Sometime, hopefully. That is what the Palestinians have been calling for for a long time.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 10, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> So now the Geneva conventions are ISRAELI SHIT ?



Funny how the Geneva Conventions are Israeli shit until we start talking about Article 49(6).


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > • Will there ever come a time in which the Palestinians will be subject to the Law?
> ...






And the way they are going they will end up with nothing when the rest of the world tuns on them


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

> Originally posted by *Shusha*
> These posts are a mess.



Ok, here's the skinny on the second part of this thread:

From 1948 to today the border guards who man these watchtowers have arrested, assaulted, maimed and murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians whose crime was trying to go unarmed from Gaza City, Khan Yunis, etc... to other parts of their homeland.







This is the the average westerner's appraisal of the jewish state:



> Originally posted by *Coyote
> Israel is supposed to be a beacon of light in the ME*.
> 
> The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen
> ...



A murderous racial dictatorship that has been exterminating for the last 68 years the very same people it should treat as its citizens being described as (almost) "*a beacon of light in the Middle East*", (as being well on its way to becoming) "*a beacon of light in the Middle East*".

If this is not the dehumanization of the palestinian people and the superhumanization of the jewish people, a kind of free pass westerners give to Israel (due to the Holocaust) that no other country enjoys, then the concepts of superhumanization and dehumanization themselves have no meaning at all.

You can call the reality of the superhumanization of the jewish people in the post-WWII world an "anti-semitic canard" but it doesn't make the phenomenon any less real.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

The same average westerner that calls the jewish supremacist state a "*beacon of light in the Middle East*" has no problem at all crucifying the United States for the totally harmless Chinese Exclusion Act.



> Originally posted by *Coyote*
> Yes, and those were *some pretty damning and shameful periods in our history* weren't they?
> 
> Forget our own history? Not in the least. We should not forget it and we should not be repeating it or using *it's injustices* to support further injustices.



How many US natives were harmed by the Chinese Exclusion Act?

How many native americans were killed or lost their tribal homelands because of that piece of legislation?

How many free american blacks were enslaved again because of it?

How many miles of its homeland did Mexico lose to american imperialism due to that Act?

The only natives harmed by the Chinese Exclusion Act were* the natives of China themselves* people who never had any natural right to live in America in the first place.

If the average westerner, represented here by Coyote, considers the Exclusion Act an "*injustice*", a "*pretty damning and shameful period in US history*" and at the same time says Israel has a right to use "*lethal force*" against palestinians and calls Israel a "*beacon of light*" willfully ignoring the hundred of thousands of natives arrested, shot and murdered.

If they say all that, what's the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn from all the statements above?

The fact that Coyote, the typical westerner, believes chinese people in Beijing, Shangai and Hong Kong have more right to live in America than Palestinians in 80% of Palestine.

I have a clear conscience I didn't put these nutteries on Coyote's mouth... She typed these nutteries herself... using her own fingers.

Talk about mess, mental confusion of astronomical proportions.


----------



## José (Dec 10, 2016)

The first idea exposed on this thread, the idea that Ruby Bridges is entitled to more rights in America than Palestinians in Palestine sounds almost "reasonable" when compared with this nuttery according to which chinese people have more of a right to live in America than Palestinians in Palestine.

But I'll say it again, none of this is the average westerner's fault...

The fault falls squarely on the ways of thinking created by WWII.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 10, 2016)

Still not especially coherent.  And you are having trouble with the word "objective" as well.  

So let's talk about walls and the restriction of peoples movements.  And let's start creating some objective rules here.  Rules that can be applied consistently, fairly and equally to all situations.

Potential rules from the above posts:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality.  Yes or no?
It is morally correct to create borders between nations.  Yes or no?
It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity.  Yes or no?  
It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's.  Yes or no?


Have a shot at some of those.  See, I've talked to Coyote alot.  I respect her views. Actually, she is the person on Team Palestine who I have the most respect for (and she is quite biased for Palestine, which is fine, as I'm biased toward Israel, both of us quite rationally).  And I think Coyote's argument in internally consistent.  Yours appears not to be.  Aside from your clear and irrational bias against Israel and Jews, your own argument contradicts itself.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 11, 2016)

José said:


> > Originally posted by *Shusha*
> > These posts are a mess.
> 
> 
> ...










 And when did they acquire this homeland, what post 1917 treaty allocated this land to them. The one question you pro terrorist stooges can never answer as there is no treaty and there is no legal right to the land.
 As in all wars there are casualties and if you try and invade your enemies country you will be shot, this is not murder as you claim. As for yiur inflated figures less than 1000 palestinians have been murdered by the IDF, the rest died in the war that has been raging since 1921


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 11, 2016)

José said:


> The first idea exposed on this thread, the idea that Ruby Bridges is entitled to more rights in America than Palestinians in Palestine sounds almost "reasonable" when compared with this nuttery according to which chinese people have more of a right to live in America than Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> But I'll say it again, none of this is the average westerner's fault...
> 
> The fault falls squarely on the ways of thinking created by WWII.





What rights do Mexican illegal immigrants have in the US, because that is all the arab muslims have in your so called palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 11, 2016)

José said:


> The same average westerner that calls the jewish supremacist state a "*beacon of light in the Middle East*" has no problem at all crucifying the United States for the totally harmless Chinese Exclusion Act.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










 Of topic

 Of topic

 Of topic

 Of topic

 Of topic

 Yes Israel does have the right entrenched in international law to defend its citizens from attack and terrorism

 Because the Chinese will migrate legally, the so called palestinians are illegal immigrants with no rights to the land

 And you just type the dross you pick up from the hate sites because you dont have the brains to look outside your comfort zone


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 11, 2016)

José said:


> The first idea exposed on this thread, the idea that Ruby Bridges is entitled to more rights in America than Palestinians in Palestine sounds almost "reasonable" when compared with this nuttery according to which chinese people have more of a right to live in America than Palestinians in Palestine.
> 
> But I'll say it again, none of this is the average westerner's fault...
> 
> The fault falls squarely on the ways of thinking created by WWII.








 This way of thinking was around well before WW2, it was around in the 7C when mo'mad invented islam and told his followers to KILL THE UNBELIEVERS


----------



## José (Dec 11, 2016)

> Originally posted by *Shusha*
> See, I've talked to Coyote alot. I respect her views.



Of course you do...

You are a dehumanizer of the Palestinian people just like her.

You both believe the natural rights of the Palestinian people to live in most of their homeland is "smoke and mirrors" (Coyote's actual words).



> Originally posted by *Shusha*
> And I think Coyote's argument in internally consistent.



Let me see...

America committed a historic "injustice" in the 19th century, a "damning and shameful period in US history" for not allowing chinese people to travel 6254 miles and live in a country as alien as Mars to them but Israel has the right to arrest, shoot and murder refugees born in Ashkelon and Jerusalem, 60 or 40 years ago.

Arguments don't get any more consistent than this...

As consistent as a crumbling building collapsing under its own weight.



> Originally posted by *Shusha*
> Actually, she is the person on Team Palestine who I have the most respect for (and she is quite biased for Palestine, which is fine, as I'm biased toward Israel, both of us quite rationally).



I see... people "quite biased for Palestine" and the so-called "Team Palestine" is made up of people who support Israel's right to use "lethal force" against refugees fighting for their natural rights.

With "friends" like these who needs the IDF?


----------



## José (Dec 11, 2016)

I'm not ignoring your excellent questions, Shusha, just "saving" them for an appropriate thread : )


----------



## Shusha (Dec 11, 2016)

José said:


> You are a dehumanizer of the Palestinian people just like her.
> 
> You both believe the natural rights of the Palestinian people to live in most of their homeland is "smoke and mirrors" (Coyote's actual words).



On the contrary.  I am quite outspoken here about Palestinian rights -- their right to a homeland, their right to sovereignty on territory they lived on for thousands of years, their right to safety and security, their right to access their own holy places.  

I just think the Jewish people have the same rights.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 12, 2016)

José said:


> > Originally posted by *Shusha*
> > See, I've talked to Coyote alot. I respect her views.
> 
> 
> ...








 The palestinians by their own actions dehumanise themselves when they target children and unarmed women in their terrorist attacks.

 Yes Israel is allowed under international law to arrest and kill terrorists attacking them, not one of these actions is murder as there is no premeditation and it it is done during terrorist attacks or acts of war. Like all Jew haters that dehumanise the Jews you make claims that you cant prove, making you worse than those you are calling on here.

What "natural rights" do illegal immigrants, terrorists and war criminals have then, care to spell them out so we can all see which hymn sheet you are reading from ?


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 12, 2016)

José said:


> I'm not ignoring your excellent questions, Shusha, just "saving" them for an appropriate thread : )







For when the original thread is forgotten and you can manipulate them to your hearts content


----------



## P F Tinmore (Dec 12, 2016)

Shusha said:


> José said:
> 
> 
> > You are a dehumanizer of the Palestinian people just like her.
> ...


The Jews have the same rights to Palestine as the Palestinians? 

Remember, the Jews kicked the Palestinians out of Palestine. It must be that superiority complex.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > José said:
> ...








 Remember the palestinians were the Jews before the arab muslims were invented, and stayed as such until arafat stole the name from them in the 1960's.

It was the arab league that kicked them out so the world would not see the rape and bloodbath that would follow the invasion on may 14 1948 of arab muslims by arab league soldiers


----------



## Shusha (Dec 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The Jews have the same rights to Palestine as the Palestinians?



The Jewish Palestinians have the same rights to Palestine that the Arab Palestinians have.  Rejecting that simple concept is discrimination based on ethnicity.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 13, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews have the same rights to Palestine as the Palestinians?
> ...


 





And tinny cant see that as he still thinks the Jews were wiped out 2000 years ago, leaving palestine for the arab muslims to take over when mo'mad invented them


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Dec 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > José said:
> ...



It's not a superiority complex, but the fact that really the whole land is Eretz Yisroel, according to the Bible.  In fact, the Jews were being overly generous in letting the Arabs have any part of it at all!!


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

Are you seriously claiming that the old testament, a fairy tale to the preponderance of the world's population, gives a bunch of Europeans the right to expropriate the native Muslims and Christians of Palestine?


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The Jews have the same rights to Palestine as the Palestinians?
> ...



But the Zionist Jews were Europeans, not Palestinians.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 13, 2016)

our social programs are what turned the US from a relative Third World economy, to our First World economy we have now.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


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








 NOT ALL only some, as the records show the majority were palestinians


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


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








 Isn't it the basis of your religion as well


----------



## Shusha (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> But the Zionist Jews were Europeans, not Palestinians.



The population of Israel today is made up of different groups -- Jewish people who had been living there for generations; Jewish people who were newly immigrant from places like Europe, Jewish people who were ethnically cleansed from the surrounding Muslim ME States, and Jewish people who were rescued from places where new genocides were being committed against them.  

Self-determination and self-government includes the right to control immigration.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

There were a handful of Arab Jews in Palestine before the Zionist invasion/migration, and they were also relative newcomers Sephardics from Spain and the Maghreb.  Why wasn't immigration controlled when the native Muslims and Christians asked that they be protected, as was required by the Covenant of LON?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Why wasn't immigration controlled when the native Muslims and Christians asked that they be protected, as was required by the Covenant of LON?



Protect them from what?  Having to live next to Jews?!  The HORROR!


----------



## fanger (Dec 13, 2016)

Protect them from the illegal invasion of European Jews, who would go on to declare Palestine a new jewish homeland under the pseudonym "Israel" and deny the Native's rights


----------



## fanger (Dec 13, 2016)

As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at fault, the Palestinians are irrational “terrorists” who have no point of view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice.



This paper outlines the history of Palestine to show how this process occurred and what a moral solution to the region’s problems should consist of. If you care about the people of the Middle East, Jewish and Arab, you owe it to yourself to read this account of the other side of the historical record.

*Introduction*
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs’ inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to today.

The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).

The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists’ intentions, strenuously opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh century A.D. (Over 1200 years)

In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous inhabitants didn’t matter. The Arabs’ opposition to Zionism wasn’t based on anti-Semitism but rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

One further point: being Jewish ourselves, the position we present here is critical of Zionism but is in no way anti-Semitic. We do not believe that the Jews acted worse than any other group might have acted in their situation. The Zionists (who were a distinct minority of the Jewish people until after WWII) had an understandable desire to establish a place where Jews could be masters of their own fate, given the bleak history of Jewish oppression. Especially as the danger to European Jewry crystalized in the late 1930’s and after, the actions of the Zionists were propelled by real desperation.

But so were the actions of the Arabs. The mythic “land without people for a people without land” was already home to 700,000 Palestinians in 1919. This is the root of the problem, as we shall see.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

Shusha said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Why wasn't immigration controlled when the native Muslims and Christians asked that they be protected, as was required by the Covenant of LON?
> ...



Protect them from being evicted from their land/or and subjugated by foreigners.


----------



## Shusha (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Protect them from being evicted from their land/or and subjugated by foreigners.



Ah.  Why aren't you also demanding that someone protect the Jewish people from being evicted from their land and subjugated by foreigners and having their culture erased?


----------



## Shusha (Dec 13, 2016)

fanger said:


> ....the Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice.



The Jewish people have a real grievance:  their homeland for over four thousand years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force.  All the subsequent crimes -- on both sides -- inevitably follow from this original injustice.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> There were a handful of Arab Jews in Palestine before the Zionist invasion/migration, and they were also relative newcomers Sephardics from Spain and the Maghreb.  Why wasn't immigration controlled when the native Muslims and Christians asked that they be protected, as was required by the Covenant of LON?


Your slogan about the native Moslems and xtians requires a lot of special whining on your part. The Roman-xtian invasion preceded Jewish migration to the area of Pal'istan, as did the Moslem gee-had. 

As we know, majority land owners were absentee owners in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. You're still befuddled about who the land owners were as opposed to itinerant Moslems and a very few xtians.


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

There you go, making things up again. LOL


----------



## Hollie (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> There you go, making things up again. LOL


There you are, still. Befuddled about the facts. LOL


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

I just present the facts you bark out fantasy Zionist propaganda.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 13, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I just present the facts you bark out fantasy Zionist propaganda.


Zionist propaganda is a rationally based assessment of the Jewish people achieving self-determination while the Arabs-Moslems did not and can not?

Sorry to disappoint you but "Monty facts" are typically void of any relation to contingent reality. 

"Country of Pal'istan". LOL


----------



## montelatici (Dec 13, 2016)

Quit flirting.  I don't like you.  I just quote UN and other official documents.  You just bark out propaganda.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 14, 2016)

montelatici said:


> There were a handful of Arab Jews in Palestine before the Zionist invasion/migration, and they were also relative newcomers Sephardics from Spain and the Maghreb.  Why wasn't immigration controlled when the native Muslims and Christians asked that they be protected, as was required by the Covenant of LON?









According to the Ottomans you are a LIAR and they have been extinct since 1917


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Jerusalem After 1291 

"...Present condition of the City: (1907 edition)

Jerusalem (El Quds) is the capital of a sanjak and the seat of a mutasarrif directly dependent on the Sublime Porte. In the administration of the sanjak the mutasarrif is assisted by a council called majlis ida ra; the city has a municipal government (majlis baladiye) presided over by a mayor. The total population is estimated at 66,000. *The Turkish census of 1905, which counts only Ottoman subjects, gives these figures:
Jews, 45,000; Moslems, 8,000; Orthodox Christians, 6000;* Latins, 2500; Armenians, 950; Protestants, 800; Melkites, 250; Copts, 150; Abyssinians, 100; Jacobites, 100; Catholic Syrians, 50. During the Nineteenth century large suburbs to the north and east have grown up, chiefly for the use of the Jewish colony. These suburbs contain nearly Half the present population...""

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

Growth of Jerusalem 1838-Present

....... Jews Muslims Christians Total
1838 6,000 5,000 3,000 14,000
*1844 7,120 5,760 3,390 16,270 ..... ..The First Official Ottoman Census *
1876 12,000 7,560 5,470 25,030 .... .....Second """"""""""
1905 40,000 8,000 10,900 58,900 ....... Third/last, detailed in CathEncyc above
1948 99,320 36,680 31,300 167,300
1990 353,200 124,200 14,000 491,400
1992 385,000 150,000 15,000 550,000

http://www.testimony-magazine.org/jerusalem/bring.htm



 It was the arab muslims that were the handful right up until 1948


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 14, 2016)

fanger said:


> Protect them from the illegal invasion of European Jews, who would go on to declare Palestine a new jewish homeland under the pseudonym "Israel" and deny the Native's rights










 How was it illegal when the Ottomans and the LoN being soveriegn owners invited them to migrate, it was the arab muslims that are the illegals. And the natives were the Jews not the arab muslim invaders


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 14, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...









 They are the foreigners to begin with


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 14, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Quit flirting.  I don't like you.  I just quote UN and other official documents.  You just bark out propaganda.









 Only those parts you can manipulate to meet with your PoV


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 14, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I just present the facts you bark out fantasy Zionist propaganda.









 No you spew out islamonazi LIES and PROPAGANDA


----------

