Can Paris summit save two-state solution?

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You just bolded the passage. You did not apply it.

Again, exactly what did Israel do to get the tag "Apartheid."

"The crime of apartheid" [ICC-RS Article 7 (2d)] means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

You answered your own question.

(COMMENT)

Be specific!

• What is the "regime?"
• Who is being dominated and oppressed?
• What are the opposing racial groups?
• What institution is being maintained?

Come on get with it. Answer the Elements of the Offense:

Article 7 (1) (j) Crime against humanity of apartheid

Elements

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts.29
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

 

[montelatici]

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

When an a foreign invader invades, the native population will be hostile until co-opted or eliminated. The Jews can try to eliminate the remaining native population and see where it gets them. Or, it can co-opt the native population giving them equal rights, citizenship etc., since the two state solution has been rejected, as the results of the Paris conference demonstrated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You just bolded the passage. You did not apply it.

Again, exactly what did Israel do to get the tag "Apartheid."

"The crime of apartheid" [ICC-RS Article 7 (2d)] means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

You answered your own question.

(COMMENT)

Be specific!

• What is the "regime?"
• Who is being dominated and oppressed?
• What are the opposing racial groups?
• What institution is being maintained?

Come on get with it. Answer the Elements of the Offense:

Article 7 (1) (j) Crime against humanity of apartheid

Elements

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts.29
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.​

Most Respectfully,
R

If you saw more than just the Israeli narrative you would not have to ask those questions.

IOW, you need to get out more.

 

[Eloy]

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Confusion is rampant with you.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Time period regarding Palestinian refugees?
I specifically mentioned how they were the result of the establishment of the Israeli state.

What right?
Birthright.

 

[Kondor3]

Can Paris summit save two-state solution?

The Two-State Solution has been dead since 1967.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

This is an OK answer with me.

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Time period regarding Palestinian refugees?
I specifically mentioned how they were the result of the establishment of the Israeli state.

What right?
Birthright.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me that you are trying to apply a new law after the fact. But I can't be sure until I hear the allegation.

If you are using any event before May 1948, they are displaced as a result of Jewish Palestinians in conflict with Arab Palestinians (a Civil War between two groups under the 1925 Citizenship act). After May 1948, but before October 1950, there was no firm protocol on handling refugees. As an example, the UK was handing over all the anti-Communist Russians NKVD as fast as they could arrest or kill them; knowing they would be executed on their return. This was political expedience and turning a blind eye for the other Allied Powers. There simply were no rules back then. It seems to me that you cannot apply the Fourth Geneva Convention until after 1950. And you cannot apply the Convention on Refugees until 1950. So I'm trying to determine on what basis you make these unspecified allegations and claims. This is a good point of discussion.

The Jewish People are experienced, throughout history, at Majority Populations making laws after an event that give the pretense of legal and proper authority to act against Jews.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

This is an OK answer with me.

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

The illegal settlements need to be closed and their Jewish colonists repatriated from Palestine to Israel.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Time period regarding Palestinian refugees?
I specifically mentioned how they were the result of the establishment of the Israeli state.

What right?
Birthright.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me that you are trying to apply a new law after the fact. But I can't be sure until I hear the allegation.

If you are using any event before May 1948, they are displaced as a result of Jewish Palestinians in conflict with Arab Palestinians (a Civil War between two groups under the 1925 Citizenship act). After May 1948, but before October 1950, there was no firm protocol on handling refugees. As an example, the UK was handing over all the anti-Communist Russians NKVD as fast as they could arrest or kill them; knowing they would be executed on their return. This was political expedience and turning a blind eye for the other Allied Powers. There simply were no rules back then. It seems to me that you cannot apply the Fourth Geneva Convention until after 1950. And you cannot apply the Convention on Refugees until 1950. So I'm trying to determine on what basis you make these unspecified allegations and claims. This is a good point of discussion.

The Jewish People are experienced, throughout history, at Majority Populations making laws after an event that give the pretense of legal and proper authority to act against Jews.

Most Respectfully,
R

You should not need a convention to recognize a birthright.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

"Birthright" does not mean the same thing to everyone.

Eloy, et al,

This is an OK answer with me.

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

As long as we are suggesting ethnic cleansing, we should at least be fair about it and apply it equally, don't you think? So let's send all the Jews to Israel and all the Arabs to wherever we decide Palestine is. Then nobody has to live with a hostile population.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Time period regarding Palestinian refugees?
I specifically mentioned how they were the result of the establishment of the Israeli state.

What right?
Birthright.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me that you are trying to apply a new law after the fact. But I can't be sure until I hear the allegation.

If you are using any event before May 1948, they are displaced as a result of Jewish Palestinians in conflict with Arab Palestinians (a Civil War between two groups under the 1925 Citizenship act). After May 1948, but before October 1950, there was no firm protocol on handling refugees. As an example, the UK was handing over all the anti-Communist Russians NKVD as fast as they could arrest or kill them; knowing they would be executed on their return. This was political expedience and turning a blind eye for the other Allied Powers. There simply were no rules back then. It seems to me that you cannot apply the Fourth Geneva Convention until after 1950. And you cannot apply the Convention on Refugees until 1950. So I'm trying to determine on what basis you make these unspecified allegations and claims. This is a good point of discussion.

The Jewish People are experienced, throughout history, at Majority Populations making laws after an event that give the pretense of legal and proper authority to act against Jews.

Most Respectfully,
R

You should not need a convention to recognize a birthright.

(COMMENT)

The concept of a "birthright" cuts both ways. The structuring of the Birthright is often fabricated around entitlements at birth. The Saudi Royals have a different set of birthrights than do the non-Royals. Just as the Kuwaiti Royals have birthrights that others do not have. In some Arab Countries, Sunnis have more entitlements than Shi'ites; just as in some countries the opposite is true.

There is little to be gained by attempting to enforce fake entitlements (different from benefits) in an attempt to sure that of value. As we generally understand, (at leat here in America) there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Neither side, in reality, have any more of a birthright, than the other. What one side does have, over the other, is the earned privilege to enforce laws and codes as may be developed by their culture; within their sovereign domain. And the other may not encroach upon the sovereign integrity of the other without the expectation of consequence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The birthright is that of the native people. Not that of the invading colonists. And, time is on the side of the native people, the Jews have not been able to eliminate all of them and their population is increasing at a greater rate than that of the offspring of the invading colonists. A more Rhodesian/South African scenario than an Americas scenario.

 

[Hollie]

The birthright is that of the native people. Not that of the invading colonists. And, time is on the side of the native people, the Jews have not been able to eliminate all of them and their population is increasing at a greater rate than that of the offspring of the invading colonists. A more Rhodesian/South African scenario than an Americas scenario.

Odd that you ascribe the term "native people" to the various Christian and Moslem invaders to your invented "country of Pal'istan".

Interestingly, Israel is the one corner of the Islamist Middle East where Islamists have not managed to purge competing religions and ethnicities.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

"Birthright" does not mean the same thing to everyone.

Eloy, et al,

This is an OK answer with me.

Eloy, et al,

OK, but I'm confused.

No, Arab citizens who were born in what became Israel have a right to live in their homeland as well as the refugees and their progeny who became so with the creation of Israel.

(QUESTION)

My confusion rests in two main areas.

• What time period (specifically) are you addressing (start date, end date)?

• What "right" of "law" are you talking about (please be specific)?
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Time period regarding Palestinian refugees?
I specifically mentioned how they were the result of the establishment of the Israeli state.

What right?
Birthright.

(COMMENT)

It seems to me that you are trying to apply a new law after the fact. But I can't be sure until I hear the allegation.

If you are using any event before May 1948, they are displaced as a result of Jewish Palestinians in conflict with Arab Palestinians (a Civil War between two groups under the 1925 Citizenship act). After May 1948, but before October 1950, there was no firm protocol on handling refugees. As an example, the UK was handing over all the anti-Communist Russians NKVD as fast as they could arrest or kill them; knowing they would be executed on their return. This was political expedience and turning a blind eye for the other Allied Powers. There simply were no rules back then. It seems to me that you cannot apply the Fourth Geneva Convention until after 1950. And you cannot apply the Convention on Refugees until 1950. So I'm trying to determine on what basis you make these unspecified allegations and claims. This is a good point of discussion.

The Jewish People are experienced, throughout history, at Majority Populations making laws after an event that give the pretense of legal and proper authority to act against Jews.

Most Respectfully,
R

You should not need a convention to recognize a birthright.

(COMMENT)

The concept of a "birthright" cuts both ways. The structuring of the Birthright is often fabricated around entitlements at birth. The Saudi Royals have a different set of birthrights than do the non-Royals. Just as the Kuwaiti Royals have birthrights that others do not have. In some Arab Countries, Sunnis have more entitlements than Shi'ites; just as in some countries the opposite is true.

There is little to be gained by attempting to enforce fake entitlements (different from benefits) in an attempt to sure that of value. As we generally understand, (at leat here in America) there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Neither side, in reality, have any more of a birthright, than the other. What one side does have, over the other, is the earned privilege to enforce laws and codes as may be developed by their culture; within their sovereign domain. And the other may not encroach upon the sovereign integrity of the other without the expectation of consequence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you saying that those who can mooch the most guns have the most rights?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Wow... "mooch the most guns," you say. Well, I don't think that I touched on the strength of the sword.

What I did mention was the "privilege to enforce" (the corollary is the duty). And I did mention the "codes" of the time (we have to disregard the Arabs Palestinians in this - they serve no code of honor and valor). This was framed in the context of sovereignty (which then they had none, today very little).

The earned privilege (thumbnail):

The idealized "code" (outside the realm of Arab Palestinians) encompasses the character and spirit of valor at all times --- embracing virtues and duties. Part of the "code" is to never lay down arms even when the foe (Hostile Arab Palestinians HoAP) are merciless; but, know when to surrender.

But merciless, we mean many things.

The HoAP are NOT sworn to Valor. It takes no courage to kidnap and murder unarmed children. It takes no courage to walk into a crowded restaurant and detonate a bomb vest among the innocent.

The HoAP knows NO Virtue and does NOT defend the Helpless and the weak. The HoAP demonstrate NO behavior showing high moral standards, they argue that the have the right to engage women and children in a bus, wielding knives against the unarmed, attacking the devote while kneeling at pray,
​

The meaning behind the "earned Privilege" includes upholding the Weak, and speaks only Truth. To be Israeli (having the honor in defending the sovereignty of the nation, its people, and its cultural heritage) is to be fair and not judge others. The Israeli knows that to falter is human and to hold out a hand sometimes will strengthen the weak. These are just a part of what it means to be a 21st Century Israeli that must always be prepared to the unscrupulous HoAP to strike. The HoAP are marked by their deeds of Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.

BUT, I digress here; ---- going to deep in the meaning "the earned privilege to enforce laws and codes." It has nothing to do with "mooching guns."

Neither side, in reality, have any more of a birthright, than the other. What one side does have, over the other, is the earned privilege to enforce laws and codes as may be developed by their culture; within their sovereign domain. And the other may not encroach upon the sovereign integrity of the other without the expectation of consequence.

Are you saying that those who can mooch the most guns have the most rights?

(COMMENT)

ANSWER: NO

The "rights" in any given country is a product of that country; not an entitlement bestowed at birth. In an ideal world, that might be true. But not in our lifetime.

But having military aid from the US like Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt (as well as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc) has a distinct advantage in the sovereign integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait receive aid from the U.S., they pay dearly for arms they buy from Europe and the U.S. Jordan and Egypt receive hush money which the U.S. pays on behalf of the Israelis so that dictators will remain friendly to Israel (and support the Gaza blockade for example) while oppressing the majority of the population.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It takes no courage to walk into a crowded restaurant and detonate a bomb vest among the innocent.

Nor does it take any courage do drop bombs on people out of airplanes.

Do you have a point?

 

[P F Tinmore]

BUT, I digress here; ---- going to deep in the meaning "the earned privilege to enforce laws and codes." It has nothing to do with "mooching guns."

You're joking. Israel was created using mooched guns. Israel exists using mooched guns.

Israel could not exist without its superior ability to mooch.

 

[Hollie]

Saudi Arabia nor Kuwait receive aid from the U.S., they pay dearly for arms they buy from Europe and the U.S. Jordan and Egypt receive hush money which the U.S. pays on behalf of the Israelis so that dictators will remain friendly to Israel (and support the Gaza blockade for example) while oppressing the majority of the population.

The above belongs in the conspiracy theory forums.