More History Before 1967

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul! Sometimes you set me to giggling.

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

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.

(COMMENT)

Murder, Espionage, treason, and sedition are usually domestic laws. Israel would charge you under an Israeli statue; it is a matter of jurisdiction and venue.

Subversion, Weapons violations, Contraband Smuggling, can either be domestic or international. There are several international conventions: I'll just give a couple examples:

United Nations Official Document 67/58. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

Underlines the fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels;​

ODS HOME PAGE 60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

13. To step up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional and international cooperation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, and nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect;

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens;
​

Once you start down the path of encouraging or inciting an insurgency or terrorist action, anything you do makes it dangerous. International policy is:

Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

Reaffirming that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul! Sometimes you set me to giggling.

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

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.

(COMMENT)

Murder, Espionage, treason, and sedition are usually domestic laws. Israel would charge you under an Israeli statue; it is a matter of jurisdiction and venue.

Subversion, Weapons violations, Contraband Smuggling, can either be domestic or international. There are several international conventions: I'll just give a couple examples:

United Nations Official Document 67/58. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

Underlines the fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels;​

ODS HOME PAGE 60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

13. To step up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional and international cooperation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, and nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect;

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens;
​

Once you start down the path of encouraging or inciting an insurgency or terrorist action, anything you do makes it dangerous. International policy is:

Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

Reaffirming that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

 

[toastman]

Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?

Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?

Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now

They have never been offered anything but crap.

What is your point?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul! Sometimes you set me to giggling.

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

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



All countries have explosives. Do you have a point.



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.

(COMMENT)

Murder, Espionage, treason, and sedition are usually domestic laws. Israel would charge you under an Israeli statue; it is a matter of jurisdiction and venue.

Subversion, Weapons violations, Contraband Smuggling, can either be domestic or international. There are several international conventions: I'll just give a couple examples:

United Nations Official Document 67/58. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

Underlines the fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels;​

ODS HOME PAGE 60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

13. To step up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional and international cooperation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, and nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect;

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens;
​

Once you start down the path of encouraging or inciting an insurgency or terrorist action, anything you do makes it dangerous. International policy is:

Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

Reaffirming that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

I think the appropriate question should be: What does 'occupation' have to do with his response ??
He was responding to your previous post and I think he did a great job being as detailed as he could be.

 

[toastman]

Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?

Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now

They have never been offered anything but crap.

What is your point?

That's your opinion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul! Sometimes you set me to giggling.


(COMMENT)

Murder, Espionage, treason, and sedition are usually domestic laws. Israel would charge you under an Israeli statue; it is a matter of jurisdiction and venue.

Subversion, Weapons violations, Contraband Smuggling, can either be domestic or international. There are several international conventions: I'll just give a couple examples:

United Nations Official Document 67/58. The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects.

Underlines the fact that the issue of the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects requires concerted efforts at the national, regional and international levels to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit manufacture, transfer and circulation of small arms and light weapons, and that their uncontrolled spread in many regions of the world has a wide range of humanitarian and socioeconomic consequences and poses a serious threat to peace, reconciliation, safety, security, stability and sustainable development at the individual, local, national, regional and international levels;​

ODS HOME PAGE 60/288. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy

13. To step up national efforts and bilateral, subregional, regional and international cooperation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, and nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect;

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens;
​

Once you start down the path of encouraging or inciting an insurgency or terrorist action, anything you do makes it dangerous. International policy is:

Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.

Reaffirming that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

I think the appropriate question should be: What does 'occupation' have to do with his response ??
He was responding to your previous post and I think he did a great job being as detailed as he could be.

Detailed, but irrelevant if not in the proper context.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well it seems likw nothing offered to them for the last 65 years is good enough.
Ever hear the expression "beggars can't be choosers' ?

Like I keep saying, the Palestinians could have had their own country/state 10 times over now

They have never been offered anything but crap.

What is your point?

That's your opinion.

The only offer that they have ever had was to give most of their country to foreigners.

One would think that if people were calling for peace they could make more realistic offers.

 

[toastman]

Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

I think the appropriate question should be: What does 'occupation' have to do with his response ??
He was responding to your previous post and I think he did a great job being as detailed as he could be.

Detailed, but irrelevant if not in the proper context.

You keep asking Rocco "what does this have to do with the occupation?"
What exactly do you want him to say concerning the occupation ??? Just ask him straight up

 

[toastman]

They have never been offered anything but crap.

What is your point?

That's your opinion.

The only offer that they have ever had was to give most of their country to foreigners.

One would think that if people were calling for peace they could make more realistic offers.

You seem to be posting this under the assumption that:

1) Palestine was a country (common now, what kind of a country is under Mandate by an allied power ?????)
2) The Palestinians were the ones who "ruled" the land, when in fact never in one point did the Palestinian Arabs 'rule' it. I think Rocco has done a good job today and in the past concerning sovereignty and right.
3)The Palestinians are not responsible for ANY of the factors that is related to them not forming a legit country.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is actually a relationship.

P F Tinmore, et al,
Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

(COMMENT)

Israel is a State. (UN Admission)

The Palestinians have been threatening the territorial integrity of a Israel (member state). (1948-Present)

There is no legal basis for the armed attacks by Palestinians. (Duty of States not to use armed force to deprive Israel of their right to self-determination)

Occupation is a defensive condition against the established history of criminal behavior. While the Palestinian can "resist" occupation, it has no international authority to use force. In fact the various international laws specially rule-out the use of force. (As previously cited).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

That's your opinion.

The only offer that they have ever had was to give most of their country to foreigners.

One would think that if people were calling for peace they could make more realistic offers.

You seem to be posting this under the assumption that:

1) Palestine was a country (common now, what kind of a country is under Mandate by an allied power ?????)
2) The Palestinians were the ones who "ruled" the land, when in fact never in one point did the Palestinian Arabs 'rule' it. I think Rocco has done a good job today and in the past concerning sovereignty and right.
3)The Palestinians are not responsible for ANY of the factors that is related to them not forming a legit country.

If Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, who then? A bunch of foreigners out of Europe?

Britain was assigned to Palestine. It never annexed or otherwise claimed possession of that land. When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there.

 

[toastman]

The only offer that they have ever had was to give most of their country to foreigners.

One would think that if people were calling for peace they could make more realistic offers.

You seem to be posting this under the assumption that:

1) Palestine was a country (common now, what kind of a country is under Mandate by an allied power ?????)
2) The Palestinians were the ones who "ruled" the land, when in fact never in one point did the Palestinian Arabs 'rule' it. I think Rocco has done a good job today and in the past concerning sovereignty and right.
3)The Palestinians are not responsible for ANY of the factors that is related to them not forming a legit country.

If Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, who then? A bunch of foreigners out of Europe?

Britain was assigned to Palestine. It never annexed or otherwise claimed possession of that land. When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there.

I never said that Tinmore ! Please don't put words in my mouth.
I don't think the word 'belong' is the correct word to use here.
The British captured the land during World War 1 from the Ottomans, not from the Palestinians. The Ottomans were Turks, not Palestinians or Palestinians Arabs.
So what do you mean when you say 'belong'

 

[P F Tinmore]

You seem to be posting this under the assumption that:

1) Palestine was a country (common now, what kind of a country is under Mandate by an allied power ?????)
2) The Palestinians were the ones who "ruled" the land, when in fact never in one point did the Palestinian Arabs 'rule' it. I think Rocco has done a good job today and in the past concerning sovereignty and right.
3)The Palestinians are not responsible for ANY of the factors that is related to them not forming a legit country.

If Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, who then? A bunch of foreigners out of Europe?

Britain was assigned to Palestine. It never annexed or otherwise claimed possession of that land. When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there.

I never said that Tinmore ! Please don't put words in my mouth.
I don't think the word 'belong' is the correct word to use here.
The British captured the land during World War 1 from the Ottomans, not from the Palestinians. The Ottomans were Turks, not Palestinians or Palestinians Arabs.
So what do you mean when you say 'belong'

France belongs to the French. Canada belongs to the Canadians. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. What part of this confuses you?

 

[toastman]

If Palestine did not belong to the Palestinians, who then? A bunch of foreigners out of Europe?

Britain was assigned to Palestine. It never annexed or otherwise claimed possession of that land. When Britain left Palestine, Palestine was still there.

I never said that Tinmore ! Please don't put words in my mouth.
I don't think the word 'belong' is the correct word to use here.
The British captured the land during World War 1 from the Ottomans, not from the Palestinians. The Ottomans were Turks, not Palestinians or Palestinians Arabs.
So what do you mean when you say 'belong'

France belongs to the French. Canada belongs to the Canadians. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. What part of this confuses you?

Nice duck.
The land belongs to whoever is ruling it at any point in time. You can argue that the Palestinians Territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank) belongs to the Palestinians, but Israel belongs to the Israelis, just like you said France belongs to the French and Canada to the Canadians . You cannot really dispute that

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, there is actually a relationship.

P F Tinmore, et al,
Holy smokescreen, Batman.

How does all that relate to people defending themselves from occupation?

(COMMENT)

Israel is a State. (UN Admission)

The Palestinians have been threatening the territorial integrity of a Israel (member state). (1948-Present)

There is no legal basis for the armed attacks by Palestinians. (Duty of States not to use armed force to deprive Israel of their right to self-determination)

Occupation is a defensive condition against the established history of criminal behavior. While the Palestinian can "resist" occupation, it has no international authority to use force. In fact the various international laws specially rule-out the use of force. (As previously cited).

Most Respectfully,
R

Occupation is not a defensive position when it was Israel that initiated the conflict.

You are basing your conclusion on false premise.

 

[toastman]

Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
Why would they initiate a conflict that they were doomed to lose (nobody gave them a chance in the war, not even the Israelis). Take that from my dad, who began his service in the IDF in 1967 and was in full out combat in 1973

 

[P F Tinmore]

I never said that Tinmore ! Please don't put words in my mouth.
I don't think the word 'belong' is the correct word to use here.
The British captured the land during World War 1 from the Ottomans, not from the Palestinians. The Ottomans were Turks, not Palestinians or Palestinians Arabs.
So what do you mean when you say 'belong'

France belongs to the French. Canada belongs to the Canadians. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians. What part of this confuses you?

Nice duck.
The land belongs to whoever is ruling it at any point in time. You can argue that the Palestinians Territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank) belongs to the Palestinians, but Israel belongs to the Israelis, just like you said France belongs to the French and Canada to the Canadians . You cannot really dispute that

Rules not owns. An occupation rules territory it does not own. That is why it is called an occupation.

 

[georgephillip]

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.


(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

Rocco...I know I went off track again, but I'm wondering if you could give me a yes or no answer to this question:

Do you still believe you were one of the "good guys" in Vietnam?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel did not initiate the conflict. Go dhow many times do we have to disprove that for you ?
Why would they initiate a conflict that they were doomed to lose (nobody gave them a chance in the war, not even the Israelis). Take that from my dad, who began his service in the IDF in 1967 and was in full out combat in 1973

Are you saying that the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?