More History Before 1967

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So it looks like I owe you two answers. Sorry for the tardy response, but I had to take care of a few things.

The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.

Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.

(COMMENT)

To understand this (and I don't know where your knowledge base is, so forgive me if I start with the basics), you have to start out understanding what an "insurgency" is. An insurgency uses subversion and extreme violence with the goal to either overthrow or force change of a governing authority; or to stop such governing institutions from developing or forming. An insurgency is both the group and its effort. In the case of the Mandate of Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was an insurgent, his group (The Arab Black Hand) was an insurgency, and the insurgency was directed at both British Mandatory and the Zionist organizations in the northern Hejaz, Arab Levant Region (which encompasses almost all of the territory in conflict); timeframe circa 1920s and 1930s. This would be generalized as the at-risk nations or territories of strategic interest to the counterinsurgent.

Successful insurgencies are asymmetric actions that display a ruthlessness in its operations and a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective of the insurgency. There are no taboo boundaries (martyrdom, kidnappings, indiscriminate murders, targeting the unarmed, use of women and children as fodder and shields, etc). The justification for the insurgency is based on the internal faith that it's cause is beyond criticism and it methods are not subject to any moral or legal accountability. (Both the Black Hand and Black September were in this field.)

The opposing military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions adopted by governments and aspiring or emerging governments to defeat insurgency are in the family of internal defense and development operations (IDAD). The specific class is counterinsurgency. These are action programs taken by the government and other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security.

In most cases, there is no pure military solution to an insurgency. Once an insurgency reaches the stage in which its decision to strike are made in support of some high political cause, such strikes must be terrifying in nature. Many insurgency strikes operate on a theory that it is better to kill too many people than too few (shock value and to instill fear). Killing too few people will lessen the impact of the strike. In order to maximize the effectiveness of such a strike, it must then be publicized, without regret or excuse, so as to make it the best possible demonstration to the population of the consequences of not supporting an insurgency. “In other words, the true objective of the strike is not to kill people; but rather, it is to display your ruthlessness and willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective. Many such strikes are just to demonstrate that the government or the developing government is incapable of protecting the population it is suppose to protect. As an example, the Gaza Strip fires rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets to demonstrate that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is incapable of defending against the insurgency which has the objective of undermining and the dismantling the State of Israel.

No insurgency operates in a vacuum. The Gaza Strip Insurgents (GSI) (as an example) must derive support from some benefactor. There are three counterinsurgency methods to undermine the GSI:

• Cut-off foreign aid and assistance from external sources (IRGC-QF). This requires a quarantine.
• Counter Rocket & Mortar Fire (C-RAM) and retaliatory strikes.
• Apply pressure to the population that support and covers GSI operations and political activities.
• Target the face of the GSI, know leadership (GSI C3I).
• Identify, detect, exploit and nuetralize key personalities, logistic queues, and financial connections associated with the GSI.

The main idea of a strategy called "Drain-the-Sea" is to prevent unmolested insurgent movement by identifying the sections of the local population that are likely to support the insurgency and then relocating them to places where they can be closely watched or controlled, and thus where any insurgent activity among them will be easy to spot. Those insurgents who remain after the supporting population has been relocated will be much easier to locate and deal with due to their isolation. (See Jeff Grey “Australia’s Counterinsurgencies: A Brief History” Australian Army Journal 5(2008)17-26. p. 21.)

No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?

I'm not sure I said that. This is taken out of context. The Israeli quarantine is for security purposes, not segregation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.

 

[Hossfly]

I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.

So who's the guilty party? Any clue?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So it looks like I owe you two answers. Sorry for the tardy response, but I had to take care of a few things.

The purpose for the strategy (deterrence and retaliation) is very different from "Ethnic Cleansing" (violent elimination of an ethnic group: the violent elimination or removal of people from a country or area because of their ethnic backgrounds, by means of genocide or forced expulsion). What you have outlined is a counterinsurgency effort.

Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.

(COMMENT)

To understand this (and I don't know where your knowledge base is, so forgive me if I start with the basics), you have to start out understanding what an "insurgency" is. An insurgency uses subversion and extreme violence with the goal to either overthrow or force change of a governing authority; or to stop such governing institutions from developing or forming. An insurgency is both the group and its effort. In the case of the Mandate of Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was an insurgent, his group (The Arab Black Hand) was an insurgency, and the insurgency was directed at both British Mandatory and the Zionist organizations in the northern Hejaz, Arab Levant Region (which encompasses almost all of the territory in conflict); timeframe circa 1920s and 1930s. This would be generalized as the at-risk nations or territories of strategic interest to the counterinsurgent.

Successful insurgencies are asymmetric actions that display a ruthlessness in its operations and a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective of the insurgency. There are no taboo boundaries (martyrdom, kidnappings, indiscriminate murders, targeting the unarmed, use of women and children as fodder and shields, etc). The justification for the insurgency is based on the internal faith that it's cause is beyond criticism and it methods are not subject to any moral or legal accountability. (Both the Black Hand and Black September were in this field.)

The opposing military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions adopted by governments and aspiring or emerging governments to defeat insurgency are in the family of internal defense and development operations (IDAD). The specific class is counterinsurgency. These are action programs taken by the government and other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security.

In most cases, there is no pure military solution to an insurgency. Once an insurgency reaches the stage in which its decision to strike are made in support of some high political cause, such strikes must be terrifying in nature. Many insurgency strikes operate on a theory that it is better to kill too many people than too few (shock value and to instill fear). Killing too few people will lessen the impact of the strike. In order to maximize the effectiveness of such a strike, it must then be publicized, without regret or excuse, so as to make it the best possible demonstration to the population of the consequences of not supporting an insurgency. “In other words, the true objective of the strike is not to kill people; but rather, it is to display your ruthlessness and willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective. Many such strikes are just to demonstrate that the government or the developing government is incapable of protecting the population it is suppose to protect. As an example, the Gaza Strip fires rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets to demonstrate that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is incapable of defending against the insurgency which has the objective of undermining and the dismantling the State of Israel.

No insurgency operates in a vacuum. The Gaza Strip Insurgents (GSI) (as an example) must derive support from some benefactor. There are three counterinsurgency methods to undermine the GSI:

• Cut-off foreign aid and assistance from external sources (IRGC-QF). This requires a quarantine.
• Counter Rocket & Mortar Fire (C-RAM) and retaliatory strikes.
• Apply pressure to the population that support and covers GSI operations and political activities.
• Target the face of the GSI, know leadership (GSI C3I).
• Identify, detect, exploit and nuetralize key personalities, logistic queues, and financial connections associated with the GSI.

The main idea of a strategy called "Drain-the-Sea" is to prevent unmolested insurgent movement by identifying the sections of the local population that are likely to support the insurgency and then relocating them to places where they can be closely watched or controlled, and thus where any insurgent activity among them will be easy to spot. Those insurgents who remain after the supporting population has been relocated will be much easier to locate and deal with due to their isolation. (See Jeff Grey “Australia’s Counterinsurgencies: A Brief History” Australian Army Journal 5(2008)17-26. p. 21.)

No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?

I'm not sure I said that. This is taken out of context. The Israeli quarantine is for security purposes, not segregation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am still unsure how this applies to an occupation. That scenario does not seem to be addressed.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.

So who's the guilty party? Any clue?

Obviously, the party who segregates and discriminates and ethnically cleanses is the guilty party and that is Israel since 1947.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So it looks like I owe you two answers. Sorry for the tardy response, but I had to take care of a few things.

Could you elaborate? I am not sure I understand what you mean.

(COMMENT)

To understand this (and I don't know where your knowledge base is, so forgive me if I start with the basics), you have to start out understanding what an "insurgency" is. An insurgency uses subversion and extreme violence with the goal to either overthrow or force change of a governing authority; or to stop such governing institutions from developing or forming. An insurgency is both the group and its effort. In the case of the Mandate of Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam was an insurgent, his group (The Arab Black Hand) was an insurgency, and the insurgency was directed at both British Mandatory and the Zionist organizations in the northern Hejaz, Arab Levant Region (which encompasses almost all of the territory in conflict); timeframe circa 1920s and 1930s. This would be generalized as the at-risk nations or territories of strategic interest to the counterinsurgent.

Successful insurgencies are asymmetric actions that display a ruthlessness in its operations and a willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective of the insurgency. There are no taboo boundaries (martyrdom, kidnappings, indiscriminate murders, targeting the unarmed, use of women and children as fodder and shields, etc). The justification for the insurgency is based on the internal faith that it's cause is beyond criticism and it methods are not subject to any moral or legal accountability. (Both the Black Hand and Black September were in this field.)

The opposing military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions adopted by governments and aspiring or emerging governments to defeat insurgency are in the family of internal defense and development operations (IDAD). The specific class is counterinsurgency. These are action programs taken by the government and other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism, and other threats to its security.

In most cases, there is no pure military solution to an insurgency. Once an insurgency reaches the stage in which its decision to strike are made in support of some high political cause, such strikes must be terrifying in nature. Many insurgency strikes operate on a theory that it is better to kill too many people than too few (shock value and to instill fear). Killing too few people will lessen the impact of the strike. In order to maximize the effectiveness of such a strike, it must then be publicized, without regret or excuse, so as to make it the best possible demonstration to the population of the consequences of not supporting an insurgency. “In other words, the true objective of the strike is not to kill people; but rather, it is to display your ruthlessness and willingness to go to any lengths to achieve the objective. Many such strikes are just to demonstrate that the government or the developing government is incapable of protecting the population it is suppose to protect. As an example, the Gaza Strip fires rockets indiscriminately at civilian targets to demonstrate that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is incapable of defending against the insurgency which has the objective of undermining and the dismantling the State of Israel.

No insurgency operates in a vacuum. The Gaza Strip Insurgents (GSI) (as an example) must derive support from some benefactor. There are three counterinsurgency methods to undermine the GSI:

• Cut-off foreign aid and assistance from external sources (IRGC-QF). This requires a quarantine.
• Counter Rocket & Mortar Fire (C-RAM) and retaliatory strikes.
• Apply pressure to the population that support and covers GSI operations and political activities.
• Target the face of the GSI, know leadership (GSI C3I).
• Identify, detect, exploit and nuetralize key personalities, logistic queues, and financial connections associated with the GSI.

The main idea of a strategy called "Drain-the-Sea" is to prevent unmolested insurgent movement by identifying the sections of the local population that are likely to support the insurgency and then relocating them to places where they can be closely watched or controlled, and thus where any insurgent activity among them will be easy to spot. Those insurgents who remain after the supporting population has been relocated will be much easier to locate and deal with due to their isolation. (See Jeff Grey “Australia’s Counterinsurgencies: A Brief History” Australian Army Journal 5(2008)17-26. p. 21.)

No, I don't think so. Who said that the Jews had no right to live in Palestine?

I'm not sure I said that. This is taken out of context. The Israeli quarantine is for security purposes, not segregation.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am still unsure how this applies to an occupation. That scenario does not seem to be addressed.

I find no laws sanctioning these acts against Insurgencies in intl law. Am I missing something? I do not find in the rules of Occupation in The Geneva Convention a provision that Insurgencies make the rules there or the obligations in other intl treaty obligations of a Nation inoperative.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Yes, this is a standing set of responses for an insurgency.

I am still unsure how this applies to an occupation. That scenario does not seem to be addressed.

(COMMENT)

The insurgency is the active element within the armed Palestinian movement.

For instance (example only), the most recent hero of Palestine (Samer Tariq ISSAWI), is an insurgent. A member of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), an insurgent group, subsidiary element of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

ISSAWI was arrest and convicted of possession of explosives and attempted murder in 2002. He is a known bomb maker for the DFLP. ISSAWI was apprehended in 2012 for violation of the terms of HIS early release.

The DFLP is a secular Marxist-Leninist splinter group of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Engaged in anti-Israel activities (an insurgency that has generally focused its violent activities within Israel and the Palestinian Territories).

Some groups can be both a terrorist group and a insurgent group. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is an example. The PIJ, hiding under the cover of the General Population in Gaza, more recently responsible for firing rockets into southern Israel (last Sunday), is both a terrorist group and an insurgent group.​

I find no laws sanctioning these acts against Insurgencies in intl law. Am I missing something? I do not find in the rules of Occupation in The Geneva Convention a provision that Insurgencies make the rules there or the obligations in other intl treaty obligations of a Nation inoperative.

(COMMENT)

Oddly enough, I think you got it. Relative to an insurgency, the insurgent is charged with the domestic or local law offenses and tactics used to further the insurgency:

• Espionage,
• Sabotage,
• Subversion,
• Treason,
• Sedition,
• Weapons violations, Illegal trading,
• Explosives Handling,
• Smuggling of Contraband,
• Murder,
• etc, etc, etc,

The very first claim an insurgent makes, is similar to the claim ISSAWI makes. HE would not say I was arrested for making bombs. HE would say something like, I was arrested in connection with may activities to liberate Palestine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Auteur]

Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others. I am saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations.. It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects. Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?

I could also be wrong, but I have a hard time understanding how Americans just can't seem to live peacefully with others. One of the highest murder rates in the world, and certainly one of the highest incarceration rates contributes to this befuddlement. So too does the ease with which the US can inflict mayhem on others, such as Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, Guatamala, Grenada, and others. Given the multicultral nature of US society, is it really that hard for them to understand, empathize, and coexist with others....and even themsevles?

 

[MHunterB]

I do not think it matters, the reasons we give to segregate or discriminate or ethnically cleanse or what we rename it. It is never right, no matter how we try to justify it. Ethnic cleansing occurred in Palestine from 1947 forward and still continues.

So who's the guilty party? Any clue?

Obviously, the party who segregates and discriminates and ethnically cleanses is the guilty party and that is Israel since 1947.

Not obvious at all - especially to the Jerusalemites who were ethnically cleansed out of their homes in 1949 by the Jordanian military.

Jordan very clearly engaged 'ethnic cleansing' there - yet you have given a pass on that crime against humanity. I think that needs to be explained.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UN’s International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, “Operation Pillar of Defense.” Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri

 

[georgephillip]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, a good question.

The two state solution has been on the table for over75 years.

If it is such a great idea, why isn't it happening?

(COMMENT)

I don't think anyone has an answer.

But we know that the Arab Palestinian blames everyone. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq Jordan, Kuwait, Egypt and the Sudan all came from the same set of Mandates or Trusteeships of the Allied Powers. The same rules, theories and concepts were used to make them, as well as the Arab-Jewish Partition Plan. Only the little State of Israel came to be ethnically different.

The Palestinian Arab blames Faisal, blames the LoN/UN, the Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire. The claim the right of self-determination and deny that right to the Jewish. They claim ancient rights over the land, and deny the Jewish claim. They charge foul play under international law, and accuse the authors of the international law of not following the law. They engage in war and terrorism, claim foul when the same is applied to them. They first refuse the offer of territory, then claim it is valid after their attempt to use force fails; now the claim it is invalid. The pledge the destruction of Israel yet claim they are no threat to regional peace.

They challenge every LoN/UN decision made (Treaty, Convention, Agreement, and Resolution) relative to the conflict, yet invoke Humanitarian Law and Criminal Law as if they can pick and choose which resolutions they honor and which ones they will not. They start three wars, yet want to be treated as a victim.​

I think it is impossible to understand why the Jews and Arabs could not live side by side. But it is plain as any science or mathematical law that they cannot.

One solution is to continue the Occupation until the People choose a Constitution and way of life that is conducive to peace; until they cease to be a threat to peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe I am wrong, Rocco, but it seems to me that the Muslims have a hard time living peacefully with others. I am saying this because of what is going on in southern Thailand, in the Philippines in China, in Nigeria and many other locations.. It appears that the Muslims can't even live with other Muslims of different sects. Would it really be that hard, let's say, for the Sunni Muslims to live peacefully with the Shiites and Ahmadis in Pakistan instead of always car or suicide bombing them?

Maybe I'm wrong, Hossie and Rocco, but doesn't it seem like Americans really like killing for money and market share on the opposite side of the planet from their homeland?

"Operation Speedy Express was a controversial United States military operation of the Vietnam War conducted in the Mekong Delta provinces Kien Hoa and Vinh Binh. The operation was launched to prevent NLF (Viet Cong) units from interfering with pacification efforts and to interdict lines of NLF communication and deny them the use of base areas..."

"The U.S. military claimed 10,889 enemy dead, with only 40 soldiers killed in this operation from the period of December 1968 to 31 May 1969 (a kill ratio of 272.2:1), but only 748 weapons were recovered (a ratio of enemy killed to weapons seized of 14.6:1).

"The U.S. Army after-action report attributed this to the fact the high percentage of kills made during night hours (estimated at 40%), and by air cavalry and other aerial units, as well as asserting that 'many of the guerilla units were not armed with weapons'.

"The commander of the 9th Division, Major General Julian Ewell, was allegedly known to be obsessed with body counts and favorable kill ratios and said "the hearts and minds approach can be overdone....in the delta the only way to overcome VC control and terror is with brute force applied against the VC".[3]

"Controversy over the operation arose in June 1972, when Newsweek's Saigon Bureau Chief, Kevin Buckley (working with Alexander Shimkin), wrote an article titled 'Pacification's Deadly Price' that questioned the spectacular ratio of U.S. dead to purported Vietcong, as well the small number of weapons recovered, and suggested that perhaps more than 5,000 of the dead were innocent civilians (quoting an unnamed U.S. official).

"Although Buckley acknowledged that NLF structure and control in the region was extensive, he wrote that local hospitals had treated more wounds caused by U.S. firepower than by the NLF.[4]

"More recently, former Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska, a veteran of the Ninth Infantry, alleged that some U.S. commanders on the ground inflated the body count during the operation since this was how their success was judged."

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

Again, sorry for being late, I had a few chores to take care of the last few days.

Maybe I'm wrong, Hossie and Rocco, but doesn't it seem like Americans really like killing for money and market share on the opposite side of the planet from their homeland?

(COMMENT)

"Like killing!"

The US doesn't function on that premise. The US is a political-military hegemony. It operates on the mantra "Persuasive in Peace - Victorious in War." It uses diplomacy first and force when it has on other option.

Money and Markets is not always the reason for US involvement. Soldiers, prior to the "all volunteer force," don't get paid all that much. But it is rare to find any military force that doesn't get paid. I'm not sure I get you implication.

"Operation Speedy Express was a controversial United States military operation of the Vietnam War conducted in the Mekong Delta provinces Kien Hoa and Vinh Binh. The operation was launched to prevent NLF (Viet Cong) units from interfering with pacification efforts and to interdict lines of NLF communication and deny them the use of base areas..."

"The U.S. military claimed 10,889 enemy dead, with only 40 soldiers killed in this operation from the period of December 1968 to 31 May 1969 (a kill ratio of 272.2:1), but only 748 weapons were recovered (a ratio of enemy killed to weapons seized of 14.6:1).

"The U.S. Army after-action report attributed this to the fact the high percentage of kills made during night hours (estimated at 40%), and by air cavalry and other aerial units, as well as asserting that 'many of the guerilla units were not armed with weapons'.

(COMMENT)

Yes, a typical counterinsurgency effort.

"The commander of the 9th Division, Major General Julian Ewell, was allegedly known to be obsessed with body counts and favorable kill ratios and said "the hearts and minds approach can be overdone....in the delta the only way to overcome VC control and terror is with brute force applied against the VC".[3]

"Controversy over the operation arose in June 1972, when Newsweek's Saigon Bureau Chief, Kevin Buckley (working with Alexander Shimkin), wrote an article titled 'Pacification's Deadly Price' that questioned the spectacular ratio of U.S. dead to purported Vietcong, as well the small number of weapons recovered, and suggested that perhaps more than 5,000 of the dead were innocent civilians (quoting an unnamed U.S. official).

(COMMENT)

This is an "interpretation" based on innuendo "(suggested that perhaps)." I could make a finding that there was a very large enemy component. The fact that large weapons caches were not found in the dense jungle, doesn't mean they were not there; just well hidden.

"Although Buckley acknowledged that NLF structure and control in the region was extensive, he wrote that local hospitals had treated more wounds caused by U.S. firepower than by the NLF.

(COMMENT)

Again, innuendo! At the time, the military operated on the principle of "volume of fire."

"More recently, former Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska, a veteran of the Ninth Infantry, alleged that some U.S. commanders on the ground inflated the body count during the operation since this was how their success was judged."

(COMMENT)

This is quite possible. While not the only reason the US doesn't go in for body counts today, inflated counts certainly was a lesson learned.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UN’s International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, “Operation Pillar of Defense.” Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLoiJCuqsuM]Roger Waters on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "Epilogue" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Espionage,
Sabotage,
Subversion,
Treason,
Sedition,
Weapons violations, Illegal trading,
Explosives Handling,
Smuggling of Contraband,
Murder,
etc, etc, etc,

How much of this is relevant when fighting a foreign occupation,

 

[toastman]

"I appear before you as a representative of the fourth Russell Tribunal on Palestine and in that capacity I am representing global civil society.We found that the State of Israel is guilty of a number of international crimes.Apartheid.The UN’s International Covenant on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, defines that crime as inhuman acts by any government that are “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”* As you all know, the prohibited acts include arbitrary arrest, legislative measures that discriminate in the political, social, economic and cultural fields; measures that divide the population along racial lines, and the persecution of those opposed to the system of apartheid.As you are aware, this finding by the tribunal was endorsed earlierIn the year by the HRC Committee for the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination in Geneva after submissions by the Tribunal madeboth orally and in writing.Ethnic cleansing.* In this case that crime includes the systematic eviction of much of the native Palestinian population by force since 1947-48.Collective punishment of a civilian population, explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Convention Article 33. Israel has violated its obligation as Occupying Power throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Its most serious violations have occurred recently in Gaza with the blockade and virtual imprisonment of the entire population, the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians during the Israeli offensive, “Operation Cast Lead” in 2008 and 9, and now the devastation wrought by the recent attack, ironically named, “Operation Pillar of Defense.” Roger Waters speech at the UN | Russell Tribunal on Palestine. A Speech before the UN addressing ethnic cleansing by Israel in Palestine. They do not address any ethnic cleansing by others in the land. I renounce Zionist ethnic cleansing fantasies. Sherri

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLoiJCuqsuM]Roger Waters on the Russell Tribunal on Palestine "Epilogue" - YouTube[/ame]

I love Roger Water and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is by far my favorite band. I can play many of their songs on guitar and drums .
I saw him live about 4 or 5 years ago in Montreal, and the first thing he said when he came on stage was: " It's been 33 years since I spat on one of you" referring to an incident where here spat on some rowdy fans hahahaha. Amazing musician

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force. This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups. But there really is no such right.

Espionage,
Sabotage,
Subversion,
Treason,
Sedition,
Weapons violations, Illegal trading,
Explosives Handling,
Smuggling of Contraband,
Murder,
etc, etc, etc,

How much of this is relevant when fighting a foreign occupation,

(COMMENT)

Under domestic law, all these apply. None are based on some underlying International Law. If a Palestine kills anyone in Israel (or any territory Israel Occupies), for whatever reason, Israel domestic law on homicide is applicable.

Under International Law, there is no limitation to duration of an occupation. There really is no law that prohibits an occupation that was pursuant to the hot pursuit of enemy forces, in which the overrun territory was occupied as a military necessity for rear area protection and the containment of hostile insurgent activity directed towards a sovereign state.

The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.

On 11 May 1949, Israel became a Member of the United Nations. In admitting Israel, the General Assembly specifically took note of Israel’s declarations and explanations made earlier to the Assembly’s Ad Hoc Political Committee regarding the implementation of resolutions 181 (II) and 194 (III). Those declarations and
explanations referred, among other things, to the international regime envisaged for
Jerusalem, the problem of Arab refugees and boundary questions.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

(QUESTIONs)

• Who used force first?
• Has there ever been a Peace between the Palestinian and Israelis since hostilities opened?

(ANSWERs)

• No
• No

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

The argument on Collective punishment presupposes that the collective is not in violation of law. That they are not conspiratorially involved.

I love Roger Water and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is by far my favorite band. I can play many of their songs on guitar and drums .
I saw him live about 4 or 5 years ago in Montreal, and the first thing he said when he came on stage was: " It's been 33 years since I spat on one of you" referring to an incident where here spat on some rowdy fans hahahaha. Amazing musician

(COMMENT)

The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.

Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.

This makes them active in aiding and abetting, or accessory to the offenses; an enemy population that has adopted and furthered the Hamas Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I know that the Palestinian believes they have some right to use armed force. This is something that Palestinians have in common with other insurgent groups. But there really is no such right.

Espionage,
Sabotage,
Subversion,
Treason,
Sedition,
Weapons violations, Illegal trading,
Explosives Handling,
Smuggling of Contraband,
Murder,
etc, etc, etc,

How much of this is relevant when fighting a foreign occupation,

(COMMENT)

Under domestic law, all these apply. None are based on some underlying International Law. If a Palestine kills anyone in Israel (or any territory Israel Occupies), for whatever reason, Israel domestic law on homicide is applicable.

Under International Law, there is no limitation to duration of an occupation. There really is no law that prohibits an occupation that was pursuant to the hot pursuit of enemy forces, in which the overrun territory was occupied as a military necessity for rear area protection and the containment of hostile insurgent activity directed towards a sovereign state.

The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.

On 14 May 1948, Britain relinquished its Mandate over Palestine and disengaged its forces. On the same day, the Jewish Agency proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel on the territory allotted to it by the partition plan. Fierce hostilities immediately broke out between the Arab and Jewish communities. The next day, regular troops of the neighboring Arab States entered the territory to assist the Palestinian Arabs.

SOURCE: http://unispal.un.org/pdfs/DPI2499.pdf

(QUESTIONs)

• Who used force first?
• Has there ever been a Peace between the Palestinian and Israelis since hostilities opened?

(ANSWERs)

• No
• No

Most Respectfully,
R

Sabotage, Subversion, Treason, Sedition

I thought these were actions against your own country. How do they apply to an occupation?

Weapons violations, Illegal trading, Smuggling of Contraband

Palestinian law states that it is legal to import and manufacture weapons. Where did you get this?

Explosives Handling

All countries have explosives. Do you have a point.

The legitimacy of either argument rest on which side is alleged to have been the party to first use armed force in contravention of the UN Charter.

Let's see. The Palestinians were at home minding their own business when the Zionists went to Palestine to take over their country. That would be the first aggressive move.

 

[P F Tinmore]

et al,

The argument on Collective punishment presupposes that the collective is not in violation of law. That they are not conspiratorially involved.

I love Roger Water and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd is by far my favorite band. I can play many of their songs on guitar and drums .
I saw him live about 4 or 5 years ago in Montreal, and the first thing he said when he came on stage was: " It's been 33 years since I spat on one of you" referring to an incident where here spat on some rowdy fans hahahaha. Amazing musician

(COMMENT)

The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.

Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.

This makes them active in aiding and abetting, or accessory to the offenses; an enemy population that has adopted and furthered the Hamas Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.

The Palestinians are defending themselves from occupation.

 

[Auteur]

The collective, voted for a leadership. The collective provides cover and concealment to the terrorist and insurgents. That the collective intentionally and with full knowledge and support, elected a leadership that is known to organize, instigate, facilitate, participate in, finance, encourage and tolerate terrorist and insurgent activities and uses heavily populated areas for terrorist/insurgent installations and training, and for the preparation and organization of terrorist and insurgent acts intended to be committed against the States of Israel and their citizens.

Collectively, the Palestinian population gave de facto approval and endorsement to Hamas to pursue the agenda in the Covenant.

This makes them active in aiding and abetting, or accessory to the offenses; an enemy population that has adopted and furthered the Hamas Covenant.

Most Respectfully,
R

Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.

Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.

In the case of Gaza, yes there was a vote for Hamas, but under what conditions? Gaza is an open air prison, cut off from the world by Israel, with supplies uncertain, under constant military threat, if not actual attack. Do you think that might generate some militant feelings? Americans have in the past endorsed some pretty radical measures, such as the imperial adventure in Iraq for example, or the suspention of certain civil rights after 9/11, despite a generally comfortable existence. If under constant stress of hunger and attack, how radical would Americans become, do you think?

This is a rationale you want to be careful with, because following this logic Americans, participating in a true democracy, would become targets around the world, from 17 year old backbackers to vacationing grandmothers, due to the foreign policy of the US.