Gaza army

[fanger]

Israeli's wont settle for one
half of Jerusalem

 

[fanger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.


Most Respectfully,
R

When you bring your Laws to tell me what rights I have, I'll meet you halfway, with a Gun

 

[aris2chat]

I asked him her it "who's land was it that Israel occupied" and the response was "not Israel's!". In other words he she it doesn't want to face the wall of facts. LOL.

The definition of an "occupation", is occupying land you have no clear title to.

So it doesn't matter who's land it is, it only matters that it is "not Israel's".

I'll correct your short sighted ability at coherent commentary: The land is not Islamic terrorists'

Correct. It's land given to Palestinians!

Land 'given' to palestinians? Israel tried. PA controls much of the WB and hamas took gaza by force from the PA.
Israel withdrew from gaza for the sake of peace.
Land that was offered to the palestinians by the UN was refused. Anything after than they have to come to some agreement with Israel to hand over. No land it their's by right. It was turned down. Jordan took, egypt took, bother handed over the land to Israel, not to palestinians.
If palestinians want any land or state they have to sign an agreement with Israel for it. Nothing is their's without an agreement.
Israel has tried three times in good faith to help the palestinians establish a state but they were turned down.
They don't care about a state as much as they care about the destruction of Israel. Arafat and Abbas could have signed an agreement with Israel. Now it will be up to Erakat if palestinians are serious about a state and peace. Peace, that is the price for statehood. That is the price they are not fully committed to pay. They can't even form a unity government so who is going to negotiate with Israel for a state?

 

[aris2chat]

It was Ottoman land for 700 years, then after WWI when the Germans and Ottomans were defeated, it fell under the British control. The Arabs refused the partition because they preferred to destroy the Jewish state and attacked Israel in 1948, NOT to create this mythical "Palestine, but simply to destroy the Jewish state and divide it among themselves. Although they were defeated, Jordan and Egypt managed to capture the West Bank and Gaza and occupy it for 20 years, again, no mention of this mythical "Palestine", by anybody. They attacked Israel in 1967 again, NOT to create this mythical Palestine, but to destroy the Jewish state, and failed again. This time loosing the West Bank and Gaza since they launched their attacks from those territories. So Israel simply got back what was supposed to be their's which coincidentally, is ancient Jewish holy lands. Yes...the "Palestinian cause" is a hoax.

True story.

when the offer of a state was given to the palestinians, it was refused. The land did not belong to anyone. Jordan and Egypt occupied the land and Jordan annexed it. Later both turned the land over to Israel as part of a peace agreement.

Statehood for palestinians is conditional on peace agreement which they are not willing to sign. Do they really want a state? They need a unity government to negotiate for that state and they can't even do that.

Palestinians are not ready for statehood, yet. Israel has tried and turned down. The one thing Israel will not do in the process of trying to help the palestinians achieve a state is commit suicide. The will not leave themselves vulnerable. Peace is the price of palestinian statehood. Till then it is not their land.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

Humm, yes. This is a position that many pro-Palestinians claim under their victimization ploy. The use of threats and coercion.

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you bring your Laws to tell me what rights I have, I'll meet you halfway, with a Gun

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I know who you are, andI'm quite sure you have know idea who I am. But let their be no mistake:

There are very few "rights" that I have every claimed the Palestinians not to have. In fact, in this most recent exchange, I have not talked about "rights" at all. I've talked about the applicability of laws.

In the past, I have indicated that the Palestinian don't have the "right" to "use any and all means" to intimidate and coerce the Israelis (or allies) to support a political position. AND I have always opposed the idea that the pro-Palestinians have the "right" to actions counter to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.

I do not believe that the Palestinian and the pro-Palestinian have any "right" to the use of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, to include Israel.

I am quite sure no Palestinians and pro-Palestinians have the "right" to support, actively or passively, to entities (HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Qassam Brigades, etc) or persons involved in terrorist acts, that support or promote the incitement to terrorism, support the recruitment of members of terrorist groups, and further the covert supply of weapons to terrorists.
​

If there is any member that wish to challenge any of these notions; please feel free. If any member thinks that any of these notions are morally or intellectually improper or unsound, don't hesitate to disagree with me.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

fanger, et al,

Humm, yes. This is a position that many pro-Palestinians claim under their victimization ploy. The use of threats and coercion.

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you bring your Laws to tell me what rights I have, I'll meet you halfway, with a Gun

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I know who you are, andI'm quite sure you have know idea who I am. But let their be no mistake:

There are very few "rights" that I have every claimed the Palestinians not to have. In fact, in this most recent exchange, I have not talked about "rights" at all. I've talked about the applicability of laws.

In the past, I have indicated that the Palestinian don't have the "right" to "use any and all means" to intimidate and coerce the Israelis (or allies) to support a political position. AND I have always opposed the idea that the pro-Palestinians have the "right" to actions counter to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.

I do not believe that the Palestinian and the pro-Palestinian have any "right" to the use of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, to include Israel.

I am quite sure no Palestinians and pro-Palestinians have the "right" to support, actively or passively, to entities (HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Qassam Brigades, etc) or persons involved in terrorist acts, that support or promote the incitement to terrorism, support the recruitment of members of terrorist groups, and further the covert supply of weapons to terrorists.
​

If there is any member that wish to challenge any of these notions; please feel free. If any member thinks that any of these notions are morally or intellectually improper or unsound, don't hesitate to disagree with me.

Most Respectfully,
R

• 
  General Assembly

Distr.
GENERAL

A/RES/33/24
29 November 1978

" 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, as I've said before, I've seen this before. This is NOT LAW and this is non-binding. AND, this is not applicable to the question of Palestine, as it violates the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States [A/RES/25/2625 (XXV)]; and the Customary International Humanitarian Law, and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
​

[

• General Assembly

Distr.
GENERAL

A/RES/33/24
29 November 1978

" 2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"

A RES 33 24 of 29 November 1978

(COMMENT)

Furthermore, this is a concept dealing with IACs (International Armed Conflicts), as it deals directly with a threat posed by "foreign domination and foreign occupation." If you have been following the discussion closely, you will note that P F Tinmore's argument is that the Arab-Israeli Conflict is that it is a NIAC (Non-International Armed Conflict).

P F TINMORE Posting #80: "You are basing your post on the false premise that this is an international conflict."
P F TINMORE Posting 260: "The entire conflict is in Palestine. That is why I say it is not an international conflict."
P F TINMORE Posting 264: "Israel is unique in history because the alien occupation and colonial domination were accomplished by foreign non state actors. There is no "foreign state" it all took place inside Palestine."
​

There are several differences between a IAC and a NAIC. Four of them are:

II. APPLICATION OF THE LO DE JURE TO UN ADMINISTRATION (Page 96 and 97, ICRC Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory)
The Hague Regulation Article 42’s core threshold for an occupation – “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army [and the] occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised” – has been generally understood by States, courts, and scholars as suggesting that occupation begins and lasts as long as three criteria are met:

(1) foreign forces are physically present in the territory of a State without its consent;
(2) the authorities of the latter State lack the capacity to exercise authority in the territory; and
(3) the foreign forces have the capacity to exercise authority over the territory.​

AND These three issues are covered under Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (IAC) (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. General principles and scope of application Article 1(4)

• Colonial Domination
• Alien Occupation and against racist régimes
• Exercise of their Right of Self-determination

These issues are not covered under 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. Material field of application Article 1

"Non-International Armed Conflicts within the Meaning of Common Article 3 Common Article 3 applies to "armed conflicts not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties". These include armed conflicts in which one or more non-governmental armed groups are involved. Depending on the situation, hostilities may occur between governmental armed forces and non-governmental armed groups or between such groups only. As the four Geneva Conventions have universally been ratified now, the requirement that the armed conflict must occur "in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties" has lost its importance in practice. Indeed, any armed conflict between governmental armed forces and armed groups or between such groups cannot but take place on the territory of one of the Parties to the Convention."
​

If, as P F Tinmore says, the Arab-Israeli Conflict (limited to the Palestinians) is an example of a NIAC, then your reference (even if it had strength behind it) would not be applicable because it deals with "foreign domination and foreign occupation;" by definition an IAC. (See International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Opinion Paper, March 2008)

It is not unusual to see different Palestinian Factions formulate arguments that work against one another.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"Yes, as I've said before, I've seen this before. This is NOT LAW and this is non-binding."

It is no more or less binding than the partition of Palestine. It is international law. So feck off. I am tired of your bullshit.

 

[Kondor3]

"Yes, as I've said before, I've seen this before. This is NOT LAW and this is non-binding."

It is no more or less binding than the partition of Palestine. It is international law. So feck off. I am tired of your bullshit.

"Mister Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it."

Translation: "That, and $3.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks."

A hand fulla nuthin'...

 

[Billo_Really]

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

What are you talking about? I live in SoCal.

 

[Billo_Really]

This conflict has always been and will always be about Muslim intolerance and violence toward others.

And you're such a beacon of tolerance...

 

[Billo_Really]

It was Jewish in the past, ruled over by 45 kings and one queen, and it is CERTAINLY theirs now, just like whatever country you're living in, is yours. What arrogance!!

I don't agree with you, but I dig your candor.

Why can't others be this honest?

 

[Challenger]

I would expect a little better from you Roodboy... Playing the dumbass is not like you at all... Maybe being influenced by "Hollie"!

I didn't post the links to show that the occupied land is owned by others, simply that it is occupied!

Proof enough!

What's the matter? Goat bit your tongue? You can't answer who's land it was that Israel occupied?

Let's see. Palestine is defined by international borders. The Palestinians are the native population and they are citizens of Palestine.

Huuumpf! The land must belong to a bunch of criminals out of Europe.

Arabs suddenly calling themselves Palestinians doesn't make a people, nation, or identity.

Neither does American, British, French, German, Polish, Russian Jewish Zionists suddenly calling themselves "Israelis"

True. They started calling themselves Israelis after the state of Israel was established and recognized internationally in 1948.

Established in 1948, true. Being a member of the UN however, does not automatically infer recognition as a state.

 

[Challenger]

Israel has no right controlling anything on the Palestinian side of the fence.

You poor Muzzie Beasts - you only have 99.9% of the land mass in the Middle East. What an outrage that those greedy Jews won't give you their tiny sliver of land...

It's not their tiny sliver of land land to give or have, never has been.

It was Jewish in the past, ruled over by 45 kings and one queen, and it is CERTAINLY theirs now, just like whatever country you're living in, is yours. What arrogance!!

Only according to a propaganda tract created by religious extremists returning from having been exiled. Outside Bible/Torah mumbo-jumbo, there is scant evidence, both archaeological and historical, to suggest that Judaism was anything more than one of several religions competing for followers amongst the general population of the region. The arrogance comes from those so wrapped up in their petty religious beliefs they are incapable of considering objective evidence. Faith is for the feeble minded.

 

[Kondor3]

...Faith is for the feeble minded.

Remember that, when you're preparing to draw your last conscious breath.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of your fellow human beings disagree with your position in this matter.

We all understand how vastly superior atheists are, with intellects vastly outpacing those of mere mortals who believe in a godhead.

Or, more accurately, we all understand that atheists oftentimes see themselves in such terms.

 

[P F Tinmore]

fanger, et al,

Humm, yes. This is a position that many pro-Palestinians claim under their victimization ploy. The use of threats and coercion.

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you bring your Laws to tell me what rights I have, I'll meet you halfway, with a Gun

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I know who you are, andI'm quite sure you have know idea who I am. But let their be no mistake:

There are very few "rights" that I have every claimed the Palestinians not to have. In fact, in this most recent exchange, I have not talked about "rights" at all. I've talked about the applicability of laws.

In the past, I have indicated that the Palestinian don't have the "right" to "use any and all means" to intimidate and coerce the Israelis (or allies) to support a political position. AND I have always opposed the idea that the pro-Palestinians have the "right" to actions counter to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.

I do not believe that the Palestinian and the pro-Palestinian have any "right" to the use of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, to include Israel.

I am quite sure no Palestinians and pro-Palestinians have the "right" to support, actively or passively, to entities (HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Qassam Brigades, etc) or persons involved in terrorist acts, that support or promote the incitement to terrorism, support the recruitment of members of terrorist groups, and further the covert supply of weapons to terrorists.
​

If there is any member that wish to challenge any of these notions; please feel free. If any member thinks that any of these notions are morally or intellectually improper or unsound, don't hesitate to disagree with me.

Most Respectfully,
R

Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.​

I have previously asked you to confirm Israel's right to territorial integrity and you have always ducked the question.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

It was Jewish in the past, ruled over by 45 kings and one queen, and it is CERTAINLY theirs now, just like whatever country you're living in, is yours. What arrogance!!

I don't agree with you, but I dig your candor.

Why can't others be this honest?

I was speaking about Israel proper, within the 1967 lines, which everyone agrees is Israel. Extremists don't even accept that, like monte and Tinmore. At least you and pbel and Humanity concede that point.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

fanger, et al,

Humm, yes. This is a position that many pro-Palestinians claim under their victimization ploy. The use of threats and coercion.

P F Tinmore, et al,

We are not talking about "inalienable" rights. We are talking about which laws are applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you bring your Laws to tell me what rights I have, I'll meet you halfway, with a Gun

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I know who you are, andI'm quite sure you have know idea who I am. But let their be no mistake:

There are very few "rights" that I have every claimed the Palestinians not to have. In fact, in this most recent exchange, I have not talked about "rights" at all. I've talked about the applicability of laws.

In the past, I have indicated that the Palestinian don't have the "right" to "use any and all means" to intimidate and coerce the Israelis (or allies) to support a political position. AND I have always opposed the idea that the pro-Palestinians have the "right" to actions counter to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.

I do not believe that the Palestinian and the pro-Palestinian have any "right" to the use of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State, to include Israel.

I am quite sure no Palestinians and pro-Palestinians have the "right" to support, actively or passively, to entities (HAMAS, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Qassam Brigades, etc) or persons involved in terrorist acts, that support or promote the incitement to terrorism, support the recruitment of members of terrorist groups, and further the covert supply of weapons to terrorists.
​

If there is any member that wish to challenge any of these notions; please feel free. If any member thinks that any of these notions are morally or intellectually improper or unsound, don't hesitate to disagree with me.

Most Respectfully,
R

Co-operation among States; especially the in their international relations that threaten and use of force against the territorial integrity of political independent State of Israel.​

I have previously asked you to confirm Israel's right to territorial integrity and you have always ducked the question.

Rocco has answered the question numerous times, including citing the treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

 

[Challenger]

...Faith is for the feeble minded.

Remember that, when you're preparing to draw your last conscious breath.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of your fellow human beings disagree with your position in this matter.

We all understand how vastly superior atheists are, with intellects vastly outpacing those of mere mortals who believe in a godhead.

Or, more accurately, we all understand that atheists oftentimes see themselves in such terms.

I dare you to watch this:

 

[ForeverYoung436]

...Faith is for the feeble minded.

Remember that, when you're preparing to draw your last conscious breath.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of your fellow human beings disagree with your position in this matter.

We all understand how vastly superior atheists are, with intellects vastly outpacing those of mere mortals who believe in a godhead.

Or, more accurately, we all understand that atheists oftentimes see themselves in such terms.

I dare you to watch this:

This has nothing to do with faith, even. You said that Israel was never Jewish in the past. If Gd spoke to Abraham or gave the Torah at Mount Sinai or split the Reed Sea, is a matter of faith. That is not what I was saying. Numerous archaeological findings, such as inscriptions on tablets by Egyptian, Assyrian and Sumerian kings say, without doubt, that there was a Kingdom of Judah in the past.