P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 78,933
- 4,381
- 1,815
SherriMunnerlyn; et al,
A couple points I would like to make.
(COMMENT)Rocco, suicide bombings are a thing of the past in Palestine, they stopped years ago. Just let it go, this baseless claim they desire suicide bombings and love to commit suicide bombings, it is not true. And let it go, your hate and demonization of them, let it all go.
This is not a demonization effort; at least not in the same sense as the reverse is true.
The mention of the "Suicide Bombing" data was relative to the "mental capacity" and "thought processes" of the HoAP (Hostile Arab/Palestinian), and not to the active strategy in play. I thought I made that clear, that it was exemplary and not a charge. If I did not make it clear, I am now.
While you can claim that Palestinians do not embrace suicide bombings, in the specific, they do embrace the concept of "martyrdom." And that is a question of mental capacity and competency.
(COMMENT)Occupations are not supposed to last over 40 years, the Israeli Occupation of Palestine became unlawful a long time ago. All that is lacking is an Opinion by The Intl Court of Justice confirming this. But I read a Special Rapporteurs Report years ago concluding the Occupation was unlawful. And people have the right to resist Occupations, their resistance, even armed resistance, is 100 percent lawful under intl law.
Without regard to what you might interpret as being declared "lawful" by the International Court, the promotion of terrorism (in any form) and the support of an armed insurgency (against a sovereign nation) is unlawful. There is no justification for the targeting of civilians in Israel relative to the Occupation of any territory lost in conflict by the aggressor (HoAP).
For more than four decades, attempts to reach an amicable arrangement with the Palestinians have met with negative results. Even today, the US Secretary of State is trying to kick-start negotiations for a settlement and peace; even Israeli President Shimon Peres (Nobel Laureate), is asking for the two sides to come together.
(COMMENT)Israel has no right to claim self defense as long as her unlawful Occupation of Palestine continues.
Both side agree on one thing: There is a conflict in progress. And while there is a conflict in progress, a military occupation cannot be "illegal;" it is a consequence of war. International Law does not set term limits on "occupation." The International Law address the conditions the Occupation Force sets over the occupied territory and the customary fashion in which such land is administered. Theoretically, as long as the UN doesn't establish another Mandate (Trusteeship), the Occupation can last indefinitely. The International Law establishes the responsibility of the Occupation Authority.
Remember, no International Law prohibits "military occupation" during times of conflict. Normally, at the end of open hostilities, it is traditional for the winner to set the tone for negotiations. However, in this case, the HoAP are trying to set the terms and demands. It is the HoAP that is continuing the conflict.
Most Respectfully,
R
Both side agree on one thing: There is a conflict in progress.
I am glad you mentioned this. This is a key point. This conflict has been in progress since WWI. The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when Israel went to Palestine with the stated goal of taking Palestine for themselves. This was an unprovoked attack on Palestine. The Palestinians fought against this takeover then, and they continue to do so today.
Israel claims that it won land in a defensive war. Both lies.
- 1) Israel is clearly the aggressor.
- 2) The Palestinians have never surrendered. Israel has won nothing.
For more than four decades, attempts to reach an amicable arrangement with the Palestinians have met with negative results.
The major flaw in the "peace" process since its inception is the precondition that the Palestinians surrender to Israel. This is something that the Palestinians have been rejecting for over 70 years. They have the right to reject such "offers."