A Few Facts About The Palestinians

[Indeependent]

The Israelis can remove themselves from the Occupied Territories and remove the blockade and control over the air space, and territorial sea of the Occupied Territories anytime they want.

And your Roman Catholic Church can sell the billions of dollars worth of treasure they've stolen in the last 1,000 years and help poor Catholics.
You can post that can people do something but it doesn't mean they're going to do it.

The Church helps poor people in general, not just Catholics. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world.

The Catholic Church is the LARGEST charitable organization in the world.

Maybe they can donate some that money as reparations to the hundreds of thousands of young boys their pedophile priests raped? Just saying.

Nah! They're too busy spending hundreds of millions prettying up a Church in NYC.
While God knows how many humans are starving.

Well they kept shuffling the pedophile priests to other locations where they could rape even more young unsuspecting boys.

Sick and sad.

 

[Roudy]

It isn't a suprise that there are many so called professed "Catholics" posing as Christians who see the state of Israel and its success as a vehicle to vent their medieval Jew hatreds. Hence their dedicated support for Palestinian terrorism and barbarism.

That is not to brush all Catholics as such, as vast majority of them aren't psychotic like this.

 

[montelatici]

How can a state that is constantly at war and holds millions of people of a particular ethnicity/religion in holding camps be deemed a success? Do you really believe any Catholic majority European state, for example, would want to be in the condition Israel is in? What European state would want to establish virtual concentration camps for the equivalent of half of their population? You are cuckoo.

 

[Roudy]

How? Just like it has in the last 70 years since it declared independence, and masturbating Arab Muslim savages have tried to destroy it over and over to no avail. The Palestinians are not Israel's problem, they are Arab refugees caused by Arabs who attacked Israel.

Yet Israel prospers, flourishes, and succeeds dramatically. Truly Gods miracle and the apple of His eye.

 

[montelatici]

How? Just like it has in the last 70 years since it declared independence, and masturbating Arab Muslim savages have tried to destroy it over and over to no avail. The Palestinians are not Israel's problem, they are a result and Arab refugees caused by Arabs who attacked Israel.

Yet Israel prospers, flourishes, and succeeds dramatically. Truly Gods miracle and the apple of His eye.

There is nothing successful about Israel. It is a dismal place that survives through the oppression of millions that don't happen to be Jews.

 

[Roudy]

How? Just like it has in the last 70 years since it declared independence, and masturbating Arab Muslim savages have tried to destroy it over and over to no avail. The Palestinians are not Israel's problem, they are a result and Arab refugees caused by Arabs who attacked Israel.

Yet Israel prospers, flourishes, and succeeds dramatically. Truly Gods miracle and the apple of His eye.

There is nothing successful about Israel. It is a dismal place that survives through the oppression of millions that don't happen to be Jews.

You clearly haven't been to Israel then. It is a successful, vibrant, tolerant democracy with a great people.

 

[montelatici]

How? Just like it has in the last 70 years since it declared independence, and masturbating Arab Muslim savages have tried to destroy it over and over to no avail. The Palestinians are not Israel's problem, they are a result and Arab refugees caused by Arabs who attacked Israel.

Yet Israel prospers, flourishes, and succeeds dramatically. Truly Gods miracle and the apple of His eye.

There is nothing successful about Israel. It is a dismal place that survives through the oppression of millions that don't happen to be Jews.

You clearly haven't been to Israel then. It is a successful, vibrant, tolerant democracy with a great people.

Apartheid South Africa was successful, vibrant and a tolerant democracy (for its citizens like Israel) and a great people. Plus, you could get an excellent 3-4 course French meal with some great wine for 2-3 USD a person. I miss that. Now you pay almost European prices.

 

[Hollie]

How? Just like it has in the last 70 years since it declared independence, and masturbating Arab Muslim savages have tried to destroy it over and over to no avail. The Palestinians are not Israel's problem, they are a result and Arab refugees caused by Arabs who attacked Israel.

Yet Israel prospers, flourishes, and succeeds dramatically. Truly Gods miracle and the apple of His eye.

There is nothing successful about Israel. It is a dismal place that survives through the oppression of millions that don't happen to be Jews.

You clearly haven't been to Israel then. It is a successful, vibrant, tolerant democracy with a great people.

Apartheid South Africa was successful, vibrant and a tolerant democracy (for its citizens like Israel) and a great people. Plus, you could get an excellent 3-4 course French meal with some great wine for 2-3 USD a person. I miss that. Now you pay almost European prices.

Your typically confused because the facts escape you.

It is apartheid / fascist Islamist majority nations that are failing and have failed.

Do yourself a favor and look at the Islamic Middle East. It's a catalog of failed nations that are collapsing as Israel is prospering.

You're suffering from what is known as cognitive dissonance.

 

[Boston1]

Israel disengaged from Gaza but organized an embargo with Egypt because of violent acts by Gazans against both countries.

Wrong! Israel started the blockade to punish Gazans for not voting for one of Israel's bitches in their elections in 2006.

Actually I'm pretty sure the embargo was in place before disengagement.

The reality is it started back in 1993.

So just like any other country Israel is free to close its borders to whoever they chose to.

Israel is free to close its borders; it doesn't have the right to close someone else's.

And they enjoy the right to embargo a belligerent so as to prevent arms from entering Gaza.

"...enjoy the right..."?

Do you think someone has the right to tell you what to do on your own property? Is that what you think?

And why can't Gazans have weapons? Are you saying they don't have the right to defend themselves?

Now if the Gazans wanted to play nice and earn the trust of its neighbors, I'm sure things would be different.

Israel regularly shoots at Gazan fishermen and you're talking about "them" [Gazans] playing nice? Fuck you!

As far as the aid flotilla, it was really nothing more than a publicity stunt that turned deadly. But however you want to see it. Israel has a security embargo on all products entering Gaza from areas of its own influence and its not going anywhere anytime soon unless the Gazans earn their way back into polite society

Attacking any vessel in international waters is piracy.

IDF commando's executed an American citizen in cold blood on the Mavi Marmara. What was his crime? Possession of illegal food!

LOL I think you are confused between an embargo and a blockade.

Quote
Embargoes are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.[2]
End Quote

Gaza is at war with Israel. Just ask Hamas ;--)

Ergo Israel has the right to defend itself with a nice peaceful blockade. Unless that is someone is dumb enough to try and run the blockade and ignore warning shots. Next step is an armed intrusion. All acts legal in conditions of war.

Something tells me you are not aware of the legal implications of any blockade let alone this one.

You might find this paper interesting, while I have not had time to read the whole thing yet its does seem full of useful information, even if I don't really agree with any of the UN findings

The Legality of the Israeli Naval Blockade of the Gaza Strip ...

Quote
3.2 ISRAEL’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW GOVERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE NAVAL BLOCKADE
Israel maintains that the naval blockade was properly declared and notified. (213) The naval blockade of the Gaza Strip began on 3 January 2009 and was announced on 6 January 2009. (214)The Naval Blockade Notice stated: “All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic (sic) and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice”(215) and also provided the geographical boundaries of the naval blockade by way of coordinates. (216) It was published on international channels, (217) and on the IDF, Shipping Authority and Ministry of Transport websites. (218) Israel informed all vessels in the Mediterranean Sea about the naval blockade, transmitted the announcement twice daily to vessels located within 300 kilometres of the Israeli coast, and notified states which Israel knew had planned to send ships to the Gaza Strip. (219) Israel asserts that the naval blockade has always been effective as no vessels have been permitted through, (220) and that it has been enforced impartially and without discrimination against the vessels of all states. (221) Israel also maintains that the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip has not prevented access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. (222)


As regards Israel’s humanitarian obligations under the San Remo Manual, the Turkel Report concedes that it is possible that the naval blockade, combined with the Closure Policy, affects the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. (223) However, it finds that there is no evidence that Israel is trying to starve the population of the Gaza Strip. (224) It also accepts Israel’s position that “food insecurity” is not the same as “starvation”. (225) It finds that the civilian population has not been denied objects for its survival and notes that Israel has permitted the passage of required items as well as humanitarian aid. (226) The Turkel Report therefore concludes that there is no breach of Paragraph 102(a) of the San Remo Manual. (227) As regards Paragraph 102(b) of the San Remo Manual and whether the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from the naval blockade, the Turkel Report accepts that it is difficult to assess the humanitarian repercussions of the naval blockade when it is examined separately to the Closure Policy that has been enforced since September 2007. (228) It notes that as there was no Gazan port, there had been limited maritime trade via the Gaza Strip, and there are no records to refer to. (229) It also notes that when humanitarian aid arrives by vessel, it is diverted to the Israeli port at Ashdod whereupon it is subjected to the Closure Policy. (230) The Turkel Report also notes that Israeli caselaw supports the finding that Israel has complied with its obligations under Paragraphs 102(a) and 103 of the San Remo Manual. (231) Finally, the Turkel Report refers to an International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter ICRC) report which suggests that medical supply stocks are low because of disagreement between Palestinian authorities, and not because of Israel’s non-compliance with Paragraph 104 of the San Remo Manual. (232)
End Quote

 

[Boston1]

The UN has specific guidelines for segregating refugees from combatants at the point of entry into the camps. But if they ( the UN ) don't do that then UNWRA says its the host nations responsibility. Either way the UN failed to separate the two and now we have a mosh of refugee and combatant descendants all being treated like refugees and offered aid even if they are still actively engaged in combat. Which is illegal under all kinds of international law.

Palestinian's have every legal right in the world to resist the belligerent occupation by a foreign force.

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

 

[montelatici]

Besides the logical inconsistency of a colonizing force acting defensively, I don't think you have a clue Boston. Even the IDF and the Israeli Supreme Court considers it a belligerent occupation. You need some refresher Hasbara Fellowship training.

"The term ‘occupied territories’ has become associated in contemporary international relations with Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza * T. ...........This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s....In a military order promulgated by the military commanders of the various fronts when the IDF forces entered the OT in 1967, military tribunals were established to try local residents accused of security offences. That military order stated expressly that the military courts were to apply the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention, thus reflecting the view of army lawyers that all the territories were subject to the law of belligerent occupation."

ICRC service

 

[flacaltenn]

My My... All these military experts around here. "an occupying force has no right of self-defense" huh ??

I'm sure you're in great company with the PLO who attacked Jordan or the folks in Baltimore/Ferguson or even the virulent anti-war Americans that felt that way about Afghanistan and Iraq..

One fact about Palestinians (that IS the topic) is that they never see themselves as anything BUT "an occupied people" -- no matter WHO's government is running the place. Places them at a fatal disadvantage when it comes to any hopes of self-determination or self-government. Much like the warring Chipewas and Cherokees in this country who had issues with organization and vision for the preservation of their heritage..

 

[montelatici]

My My... All these military experts around here. "an occupying force has no right of self-defense" huh ??

I'm sure you're in great company with the PLO who attacked Jordan or the folks in Baltimore/Ferguson or even the virulent anti-war Americans that felt that way about Afghanistan and Iraq..

One fact about Palestinians (that IS the topic) is that they never see themselves as anything BUT "an occupied people" -- no matter WHO's government is running the place. Places them at a fatal disadvantage when it comes to any hopes of self-determination or self-government. Much like the warring Chipewas and Cherokees in this country who had issues with organization and vision for the preservation of their heritage..

Who are you responding to? Who has said that an occupying force does not have a right to self defense?

By the way, your comment regarding the native americans was revealing, you are one of those that still believe that the genocide of the native americans was just, and a part of manifest destiny. I thought most of those people had disappeared.

Please do not be offended, but to discuss the I/P issue with someone with your mindset is not fruitful. You come from a position that is so over the top, there is no possible way to discuss the issue rationally.

 

[flacaltenn]

My My... All these military experts around here. "an occupying force has no right of self-defense" huh ??

I'm sure you're in great company with the PLO who attacked Jordan or the folks in Baltimore/Ferguson or even the virulent anti-war Americans that felt that way about Afghanistan and Iraq..

One fact about Palestinians (that IS the topic) is that they never see themselves as anything BUT "an occupied people" -- no matter WHO's government is running the place. Places them at a fatal disadvantage when it comes to any hopes of self-determination or self-government. Much like the warring Chipewas and Cherokees in this country who had issues with organization and vision for the preservation of their heritage..

Who are you responding to? Who has said that an occupying force does not have a right to self defense?

By the way, your comment regarding the native americans was revealing, you are one of those that still believe that the genocide of the native americans was just, and a part of manifest destiny. I thought most of those people had disappeared.

Please do not be offended, but to discuss the I/P issue with someone with your mindset is not fruitful. You come from a position that is so over the top, there is no possible way to discuss the issue rationally.

First off -- Both YOU and Billo made those similar remarks. You must not read your own stuff because it was from a post at the top of the page.

Besides the logical inconsistency of a colonizing force acting defensively, I don't think you have a clue Boston.

Secondly --- you are confused because I am AGILE about my thoughts on the issue. Coming at it not just "over the top" but also from the bottom up and the sides as well. I know that's disturbing for a fixed repetitive zealot like yourself, -- so just don't worry about me -- OK??

And Yes -- I'm saying that a Palestinian "truth" puts them on the same track to irrelevance as the Native Americans who preferred to feud amongst themselves and never learned the culture and the ways of the world that changed around them. But I made no judgement on their lose of "nationality" or how it occurred. Just that when an indigenous people centuries behind in their thinking about "nationality" don't "school up" on presenting their demands in the normal way -- they are largely ignored as "a nation"..

 

[montelatici]

Never have I stated that the Occupying Power does not have a right to defend itself. What I said is that the occupied people have a right to employ armed resistance, under International Law, and that the Occupying Power has a duty to protect non-combatants.

You are projecting. I never post anything that is not backed by a neutral source, usually from source documents from recognized official archives. The problem is, so much Zionist propaganda has been absorbed by most Americans, when the facts are presented and the sources are impeccable, cognitive dissonance sets in. The zealots are those that continue repeating propaganda that has been proven to be false, e.g. the Palestinians don't exist or they were invented in the 1960s. Even when official correspondence between the Palestinian Delegation and the British Colonial Office is presented, showing that in 1922, the Palestinians were pleading with the British for independence and the adoption of a secular constitution with rights for all Palestinians, the zealots claim the Palestinians did not exist. The Palestinians were united and ready for statehood before the Jordanians, the Syrians or the Egyptians. With their large westernized Christian population which held many of the leadership positions, they were the most suitable people to establish an independent state. The British prevented this in order to allow the Zionists to colonize the land before a Palestinian state could be established.

In any case, the success of latter day European colonial projects where the colonists were unable to destroy the native populations is negligible. The native people have all been able to secure independence from the colonizers in every case except Palestine, because of the unnatural level of support it has from the U.S. That support will not last forever and as stated, the demographics favor the native people in Palestine. The non-Jews of Palestine are not going away and Israel's decision to not allow the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state when they had the chance The Swiss cheese offer with the equivalent of Crusader castles manned by the IDF which had control within the proposed state made any the offer DOA.

 

[Billo_Really]

LOL I think you are confused between an embargo and a blockade.

I'm not confused. I'm saying you can't put lipstick on a pig.

Quote
Embargoes are similar to economic sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.[2]
End Quote

Not only is this an act of war by Israel, it's also collective punishment, which is a war crime.

Gaza is at war with Israel. Just ask Hamas ;--)

This isn't a war; it's a belligerent occupation.

Ergo Israel has the right to defend itself with a nice peaceful blockade.

An occupational force cannot claim self defense.

Unless that is someone is dumb enough to try and run the blockade and ignore warning shots.

They're not sending the right kind of aid ship.

This is the one I would send...

Next step is an armed intrusion. All acts legal in conditions of war.

It's not a war, but it is illegal.

Something tells me you are not aware of the legal implications of any blockade let alone this one.

And just what do you base that on?

You might find this paper interesting, while I have not had time to read the whole thing yet its does seem full of useful information, even if I don't really agree with any of the UN findings

The Legality of the Israeli Naval Blockade of the Gaza Strip ...

Quote
3.2 ISRAEL’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW GOVERNING THE IMPOSITION OF THE NAVAL BLOCKADE
Israel maintains that the naval blockade was properly declared and notified. (213) The naval blockade of the Gaza Strip began on 3 January 2009 and was announced on 6 January 2009. (214)The Naval Blockade Notice stated: “All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic (sic) and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice”(215) and also provided the geographical boundaries of the naval blockade by way of coordinates. (216) It was published on international channels, (217) and on the IDF, Shipping Authority and Ministry of Transport websites. (218) Israel informed all vessels in the Mediterranean Sea about the naval blockade, transmitted the announcement twice daily to vessels located within 300 kilometres of the Israeli coast, and notified states which Israel knew had planned to send ships to the Gaza Strip. (219) Israel asserts that the naval blockade has always been effective as no vessels have been permitted through, (220) and that it has been enforced impartially and without discrimination against the vessels of all states. (221) Israel also maintains that the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip has not prevented access to the ports and coasts of neutral states. (222)


As regards Israel’s humanitarian obligations under the San Remo Manual, the Turkel Report concedes that it is possible that the naval blockade, combined with the Closure Policy, affects the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. (223) However, it finds that there is no evidence that Israel is trying to starve the population of the Gaza Strip. (224) It also accepts Israel’s position that “food insecurity” is not the same as “starvation”. (225) It finds that the civilian population has not been denied objects for its survival and notes that Israel has permitted the passage of required items as well as humanitarian aid. (226) The Turkel Report therefore concludes that there is no breach of Paragraph 102(a) of the San Remo Manual. (227) As regards Paragraph 102(b) of the San Remo Manual and whether the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from the naval blockade, the Turkel Report accepts that it is difficult to assess the humanitarian repercussions of the naval blockade when it is examined separately to the Closure Policy that has been enforced since September 2007. (228) It notes that as there was no Gazan port, there had been limited maritime trade via the Gaza Strip, and there are no records to refer to. (229) It also notes that when humanitarian aid arrives by vessel, it is diverted to the Israeli port at Ashdod whereupon it is subjected to the Closure Policy. (230) The Turkel Report also notes that Israeli caselaw supports the finding that Israel has complied with its obligations under Paragraphs 102(a) and 103 of the San Remo Manual. (231) Finally, the Turkel Report refers to an International Committee of the Red Cross (hereinafter ICRC) report which suggests that medical supply stocks are low because of disagreement between Palestinian authorities, and not because of Israel’s non-compliance with Paragraph 104 of the San Remo Manual. (232)
End Quote

The Turkel report has major problems.

Summary of Israel’s National Investigation

Israel’s summary was based on the Turkel Commission’s report for which the Panel notes that original material was not provided. It also observes that Turkel has completely ignored the report of the UNHRC FFM (to which it formed an opposing opinion on the legality of the blockade). Of further concern is the Panel’s careless reading of Turkel. In para. 47 (a) it refers to “statements by various United Nations organizations” supporting Turkel’s position that the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip is an “international armed conflict”. In fact Turkel only cites the one UN report written by Special Rapporteur John Dugard in which the author declares that the Gaza Strip remains occupied territory.

The Panel seems unaware that much of the Turkel report cannot be taken at face value. Thus it has copied that Israel “provides humanitarian aid in those areas that human rights organizations identify as a source of concern” (para. 47 (f)) when in fact members of the Commission agreed with Gisha’s representative Tamar Feldman on 13 October 2010 that Israel does not supply any humanitarian goods to the Palestinians. Turkel’s assertion, again repeated by the Panel, that no humanitarian supplies were found on the remaining vessels is also false.​

Here's the findings of another UN report...

U.N. experts say Israel's blockade of Gaza illegal

Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip violates international law, a panel of human rights experts reporting to a U.N. body said on Tuesday, disputing a conclusion reached by a separate U.N. probe into Israel's raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship.

The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.

A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."​

 

[Billo_Really]

First off -- Both YOU and Billo made those similar remarks. You must not read your own stuff because it was from a post at the top of the page.



Secondly --- you are confused because I am AGILE about my thoughts on the issue. Coming at it not just "over the top" but also from the bottom up and the sides as well. I know that's disturbing for a fixed repetitive zealot like yourself, -- so just don't worry about me -- OK??

And Yes -- I'm saying that a Palestinian "truth" puts them on the same track to irrelevance as the Native Americans who preferred to feud amongst themselves and never learned the culture and the ways of the world that changed around them. But I made no judgement on their lose of "nationality" or how it occurred. Just that when an indigenous people centuries behind in their thinking about "nationality" don't "school up" on presenting their demands in the normal way -- they are largely ignored as "a nation"..

Well I'm saying it.

Saying an occupational force can claim self defense, is like saying an assassin, who breaks into the house of his target and gets a little more resistance than anticipated, telling the police he had to kill the home owner in self defense, because he was in fear of his life.

You cannot claim self defense if you're the one causing the violence.

And the occupation is the cause of all the violence.

 

[Billo_Really]

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

Israel started the last 5 out of 6 wars its been in.

This is land Israel seized in the '67 war. It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.

 

[Boston1]

First off -- Both YOU and Billo made those similar remarks. You must not read your own stuff because it was from a post at the top of the page.



Secondly --- you are confused because I am AGILE about my thoughts on the issue. Coming at it not just "over the top" but also from the bottom up and the sides as well. I know that's disturbing for a fixed repetitive zealot like yourself, -- so just don't worry about me -- OK??

And Yes -- I'm saying that a Palestinian "truth" puts them on the same track to irrelevance as the Native Americans who preferred to feud amongst themselves and never learned the culture and the ways of the world that changed around them. But I made no judgement on their lose of "nationality" or how it occurred. Just that when an indigenous people centuries behind in their thinking about "nationality" don't "school up" on presenting their demands in the normal way -- they are largely ignored as "a nation"..

Well I'm saying it.

Saying an occupational force can claim self defense, is like saying an assassin, who breaks into the house of his target and gets a little more resistance than anticipated, telling the police he had to kill the home owner in self defense, because he was in fear of his life.

You cannot claim self defense if you're the one causing the violence.

And the occupation is the cause of all the violence.

Absolute and utter nonsense

You cannot say Israel is the aggressor when every war fought was led be an Arab attack and every policy restricting palestinian aggression is retroactive to that aggression

Sorry but its your own bias thats blinding you to the facts.

 

[Boston1]

There is no belligerent occupation, Israel came to be the governing power in the region through defensive action. I don't think you comprehend the meaning of the term belligerent

Or are you arguing that none of the three major acts of war against the Israeli nation was initiated by the Arab nations or peoples?

Israel started the last 5 out of 6 wars its been in.

This is land Israel seized in the '67 war. It is illegal to hold onto land seized in a war.

actually its not if the war was a defensive action, article VI vs article VII

And as we all know, every one of the Arab Israeli wars has been the Arabs attacking and Israel defending