Nazism in Israel

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The regional security impact on the destabilization of Israel would be significant. But, be that as it may, any attack on Israel by the Arab Palestinians is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

The threat the Palestinians poses in terms of radicalism and extremism, violence, and regional security destabilization.​

​

They only attack the occupation. It has nothing to do with the region.

(COMMENT)

See Article 68 for the Fourth Geneva Convention. Hostile Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Israel Occupying Power, acts of espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the IDF installations of the Occupying Power --- or --- of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons, is in violation of the Geneva Convention (IHL). The Arab Palestinians has no special authority (legal or moral) to attack Israel (especially non-combatants).

The statement: --- "They only attack the occupation." --- is an admission of guilt.

Most Respectfully,
R

The regional security impact on the destabilization of Israel would be significant. But, be that as it may, any attack on Israel by the Arab Palestinians is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).



Article 68 refers to local civilian law enforcement in an established and proper occupation.

Israel has always been a bastard occupation with little or no compliance with the obligations or limitations of a legitimate occupation.

 

[rylah]

Should we explain a bug on Mars that the earth is not flat?

I rather you explain why Israel treats the Pals, like the Nazis treated the Jews?

The premise of the question is wrong, one-sided and manipulative.

Those are not even Your words, ideas. You're an 'useful idiot' parroting the same blood libels for the 102nd time, even after proven wrong.

 

[Daniyel]

GlobalResearch.ca

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:[email protected]

Dictatorship style press, under the title of "research".
10/10 Propaganda.

Dan, Dan, Dan..................Dan 'ole bean, ad hominems are not valid rebuttals.

Do you care to address any of the comments in the OP specifically?

Or are you trying to say the Pals are not demonized and treated like they're sub-human?

I Already cited why this website is what it is, you can simply explain why I'm wrong instead of "Dan, Dan, Dan..................Dan 'ole bean"

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh please... Talk about slinging crap.

The regional security impact on the destabilization of Israel would be significant. But, be that as it may, any attack on Israel by the Arab Palestinians is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Article 68 refers to local civilian law enforcement in an established and proper occupation.

Israel has always been a bastard occupation with little or no compliance with the obligations or limitations of a legitimate occupation.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 has no such delimiting factor or qualification. It clearly says: "solely intended to harm the Occupying Power" --- and --- "guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons."

Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
​

And as you pro-Palestinians and advocates of armed struggle point out at every opportunity, Israel is the Occupying Power.

You can't accuse Israel of occupying the Palestinian territory (oPt), and then say they are not when it become criminally inconvenient.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Typically pointless as you made no attempt to address my posted comments.

I have no intention of addressing your ridiculous accusations.

 

[Billo_Really]

I Already cited why this website is what it is, you can simply explain why I'm wrong instead of "Dan, Dan, Dan..................Dan 'ole bean"

You're attacking the source, not the claim made therein. Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals. How you personally feel towards a particular website, has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of a claim made at said website.

 

[Billo_Really]

The premise of the question is wrong, one-sided and manipulative.

Those are not even Your words, ideas. You're an 'useful idiot' parroting the same blood libels for the 102nd time, even after proven wrong.

You can't prove anything wrong until you specifically address the comments made.

Now this is funny! You say...

- the premise of the question is wrong
- those aren't even your words
- you're a useful idiot
- same blood libels​

...then turn around and call me the parrot?

Are you going to explain why you trash the Palestinian's 24/7? Yes or no?

 

[rylah]

The premise of the question is wrong, one-sided and manipulative.

Those are not even Your words, ideas. You're an 'useful idiot' parroting the same blood libels for the 102nd time, even after proven wrong.

You can't prove anything wrong until you specifically address the comments made.

Now this is funny! You say...

- the premise of the question is wrong
- those aren't even your words
- you're a useful idiot
- same blood libels​

...then turn around and call me the parrot?

Are you going to explain why you trash the Palestinian's 24/7? Yes or no?

No it's funny how you're dying to blame others for your own shadow/hatred.

And yes you're a parrot, you've showed in every way your ignorance and lack of basic knowledge of the ME.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh please... Talk about slinging crap.

The regional security impact on the destabilization of Israel would be significant. But, be that as it may, any attack on Israel by the Arab Palestinians is a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Article 68 refers to local civilian law enforcement in an established and proper occupation.

Israel has always been a bastard occupation with little or no compliance with the obligations or limitations of a legitimate occupation.

(COMMENT)

Article 68 has no such delimiting factor or qualification. It clearly says: "solely intended to harm the Occupying Power" --- and --- "guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons."

Article 68

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
​

And as you pro-Palestinians and advocates of armed struggle point out at every opportunity, Israel is the Occupying Power.

You can't accuse Israel of occupying the Palestinian territory (oPt), and then say they are not when it become criminally inconvenient.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are taking article 68 out of context. This regulates local law not international law.

The Fourth Geneva Convention | Jewish Virtual Library

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

What are some of these obligations?

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.​

And then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

 

[Daniyel]

I Already cited why this website is what it is, you can simply explain why I'm wrong instead of "Dan, Dan, Dan..................Dan 'ole bean"

You're attacking the source, not the claim made therein. Ad hominems are not valid rebuttals. How you personally feel towards a particular website, has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of a claim made at said website.

I'm not willing to consider such source as credible for claims made with no fact based explanation. Because this is a dictator style press under the disguise of "research" I consider it all falsehood with no obligations to the truth.
It's not a "feeling" but a standard set to be obliged to the truth, I also think you should first try to understand what 'ad hominem' stands for and what propaganda techniques stands for (purpose) and you'll find it very odd to manage a debate while the other side is not obliged to the truth and could invent lies time and again.
Give it a rest, if you have faith in this position I'm sure you'll find a credible source coming up with the same article don't you think?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Geneva Convention IS international law.

You are taking article 68 out of context. This regulates local law not international law.

(COMMENT)

You are the one who is taking Article 68 out of context. First, the Palestinian Territories were occupied while under the jurisdiction of Jordanian Law and Egyptian Military Law. The law that were applicable at that time, clearly made attacks illegal.

The Fourth Geneva Convention | Jewish Virtual Library

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

​

(COMMENT)

This is, in no way, makes attacks by the belligerent population against the occupying power legal. An attack on the Occupying Power IS a threat to its security.

What are some of these obligations?

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

​

(COMMENT)

First, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of of Israeli settlers from Israel to the Palestinian Territories.
Second, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of Palestinian to territories outside of the Palestinian territories.
Third, Areas "A", "B", and "C" were agreed upon under the Oslo Accords. All settlers are in Area "C" which is under FULL Israeli civil and security control; as agreed upon by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

​

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

(COMMENT)

This is a civil matter. It is a military judgement an "absolutely necessary by military operations" existed. This is especially true in terms of an insurgency.

It has no impact on the legality of the Palestinians to to conduct illegal action intended to harm the Occupying Power. Article 53 has no application at all to that issue.

And then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians were allowed to Declare Independence in 1988, without objection. The occupation and enforcement measures are to maintain the establishment of Law and Order, and to suppress the criminal activity of the Palestinian factions in their pursuit of dismantling the State of Israel.

The integrity of the national territory of the State of Palestine is still under negotiation. It is the Palestinians that put the territorial boundary dispute in a secondary position to the "right of return" issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

No it's funny how you're dying to blame others for your own shadow/hatred.

What does that have to do with the Pals being treated like garbage? And why can't you talk about the Pals being treated like garbage? Just how big of a pussy are you?

As far as your accusation, just whom do I hate and why do I hate them?

And yes you're a parrot, you've showed in every way your ignorance and lack of basic knowledge of the ME.

Care to explain that one in a little more detail?

Or are bullshit innuendo's as far as you go?

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm not willing to consider such source as credible for claims made with no fact based explanation. Because this is a dictator style press under the disguise of "research" I consider it all falsehood with no obligations to the truth.
It's not a "feeling" but a standard set to be obliged to the truth, I also think you should first try to understand what 'ad hominem' stands for and what propaganda techniques stands for (purpose) and you'll find it very odd to manage a debate while the other side is not obliged to the truth and could invent lies time and again.
Give it a rest, if you have faith in this position I'm sure you'll find a credible source coming up with the same article don't you think?

This says it all...

"I'm not willing to consider..."​

It doesn't matter what source I use, you're just going to make up some other bullshit excuse as to why it's not credible.

And you're the one who doesn't seem to know what an ad hominem is. The truth or falsehood of a claim, is not dependent solely on the website from which it came. You want an example?

If a Pallywood production said the sky is blue,
are you going to automatically think it isn't?​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Geneva Convention IS international law.

You are taking article 68 out of context. This regulates local law not international law.

(COMMENT)

You are the one who is taking Article 68 out of context. First, the Palestinian Territories were occupied while under the jurisdiction of Jordanian Law and Egyptian Military Law. The law that were applicable at that time, clearly made attacks illegal.

The Fourth Geneva Convention | Jewish Virtual Library

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

​

(COMMENT)

This is, in no way, makes attacks by the belligerent population against the occupying power legal. An attack on the Occupying Power IS a threat to its security.

What are some of these obligations?

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

​

(COMMENT)

First, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of of Israeli settlers from Israel to the Palestinian Territories.
Second, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of Palestinian to territories outside of the Palestinian territories.
Third, Areas "A", "B", and "C" were agreed upon under the Oslo Accords. All settlers are in Area "C" which is under FULL Israeli civil and security control; as agreed upon by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

​

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

(COMMENT)

This is a civil matter. It is a military judgement an "absolutely necessary by military operations" existed. This is especially true in terms of an insurgency.

It has no impact on the legality of the Palestinians to to conduct illegal action intended to harm the Occupying Power. Article 53 has no application at all to that issue.

And then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians were allowed to Declare Independence in 1988, without objection. The occupation and enforcement measures are to maintain the establishment of Law and Order, and to suppress the criminal activity of the Palestinian factions in their pursuit of dismantling the State of Israel.

The integrity of the national territory of the State of Palestine is still under negotiation. It is the Palestinians that put the territorial boundary dispute in a secondary position to the "right of return" issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Geneva Convention IS international law.

You are taking article 68 out of context. This regulates local law not international law.

(COMMENT)

You are the one who is taking Article 68 out of context. First, the Palestinian Territories were occupied while under the jurisdiction of Jordanian Law and Egyptian Military Law. The law that were applicable at that time, clearly made attacks illegal.

The Fourth Geneva Convention | Jewish Virtual Library

Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.​

​

(COMMENT)

This is, in no way, makes attacks by the belligerent population against the occupying power legal. An attack on the Occupying Power IS a threat to its security.

What are some of these obligations?

Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.​

​

(COMMENT)

First, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of of Israeli settlers from Israel to the Palestinian Territories.
Second, Israel did not make any FORCIBLE transfers of Palestinian to territories outside of the Palestinian territories.
Third, Areas "A", "B", and "C" were agreed upon under the Oslo Accords. All settlers are in Area "C" which is under FULL Israeli civil and security control; as agreed upon by the sole representative of the Palestinian People.

​

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

(COMMENT)

This is a civil matter. It is a military judgement an "absolutely necessary by military operations" existed. This is especially true in terms of an insurgency.

It has no impact on the legality of the Palestinians to to conduct illegal action intended to harm the Occupying Power. Article 53 has no application at all to that issue.

And then there is:

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians were allowed to Declare Independence in 1988, without objection. The occupation and enforcement measures are to maintain the establishment of Law and Order, and to suppress the criminal activity of the Palestinian factions in their pursuit of dismantling the State of Israel.

The integrity of the national territory of the State of Palestine is still under negotiation. It is the Palestinians that put the territorial boundary dispute in a secondary position to the "right of return" issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, the Geneva Convention IS international law.

A proper occupation is when the occupying power takes over the civil administration of another state. The Geneva Convention regulates how civilians are to be treated/protected by the occupying power. Civilians are to be under that civil administration not under military forces. An occupation is considered POST-CONFLICT GOVERNANCE

III. OCCUPATION DEFINED
A. General. Belligerent occupation is the military occupation of enemy territory: “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” (HR, art. 42; FM 27-10, para. 351).

1. Commencement of occupation is a question of fact. A state of occupation exists when two conditions are satisfied: first, the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority; and second, the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government. (FM 27-10, para. 355).

2. Occupation = Invasion + Firm Control. The radius of occupation is determined by the effectiveness of control; occupation must be actual and effective. (FM 27-10, para. 356).

C. No Transfer of Sovereignty.

1. Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty to the Occupant, and the Occupant’s powers are provisional only. The Occupant may take only those measures necessary for the maintenance of law and order and proper administration of the occupied territory. (FM27-10, para. 358).

2. Annexation and the establishment of “puppet governments” are prohibited. (GCIV,art.47)

VII. PROPERTY
A. General Rules.

1. Destruction Prohibited. Destroying or seizing enemy property is prohibited, unless such destruction or seizure is demanded by imperative necessities of war (HR, art. 23(g)). The Occupant is prohibited from destroying real or personal property (State or private) unless absolutely necessary due to military operations. (GC IV, art. 53).

2. Pillage Prohibited. Pillage, or looting by occupation troops, is strictly forbidden. (HR,art.47; GC IV, art. 33).

5. Confiscation. Confiscating, or permanently taking, private property is not permissible. (HR, art. 46 (2); FM 27-10, para. 406).

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-Deskbook-2015_Ch8.pdf​

Now, is Palestine "occupied?" It is under military control but has it advanced past the "invasion" stage? The treatment of protected persons and property are very similar either way.

Is Israel not occupying Palestine because some things don't fit the official definition? Or is it an occupation that merely violates most tenets of occupation?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

 

[Daniyel]

I'm not willing to consider such source as credible for claims made with no fact based explanation. Because this is a dictator style press under the disguise of "research" I consider it all falsehood with no obligations to the truth.
It's not a "feeling" but a standard set to be obliged to the truth, I also think you should first try to understand what 'ad hominem' stands for and what propaganda techniques stands for (purpose) and you'll find it very odd to manage a debate while the other side is not obliged to the truth and could invent lies time and again.
Give it a rest, if you have faith in this position I'm sure you'll find a credible source coming up with the same article don't you think?

This says it all...

"I'm not willing to consider..."​

It doesn't matter what source I use, you're just going to make up some other bullshit excuse as to why it's not credible.

And you're the one who doesn't seem to know what an ad hominem is. The truth or falsehood of a claim, is not dependent solely on the website from which it came. You want an example?

If a Pallywood production said the sky is blue,
are you going to automatically think it isn't?​

Try me, open a new thread describing specifically all the material made you come up with your conclusion including decisive facts.

 

[SAYIT]

Billo_Really, et al,

This is so wrong, I scarcely know where to begin...

"Okay everybody, grab your monkey!"

That has nothing to do with the thread (I was just watching Ironman 3), but this does...

Israel treats Arabs the way Nazis treated Jews – a racist, fascist, white Jewish supremacist (the chosen people nonsense), Arab-hating society systematically ghettoizing and terrorizing people for praying to the wrong God.

Palestinians are treated like sub-humans, enduring virtually every type indignity and mistreatment under brutalizing militarized rule, civil justice denied.

Institutionalized racism worse than South African apartheid denies them fundamental human and civil rights. De-Arabization is official Israeli policy. Occupation harshness facilitates slow-motion genocide.​

Millions suffer horrifically. Anyone resisting tyranny is eliminated – brutalized, imprisoned or murdered.
​

I challenge anyone to provide proof this is not happening.

(COMMENT)

• Praying to the wrong "God?" I thought that the God of Abraham was the same God for both the Jewish and the Islamic?
• I think this "Sub-human" remark has more to do with a dysfunctional Palestinian Government than then Genocide by the Occupation Force.
• Who published the Israeli "De-Arabization is official Israeli policy?"
• Article 68 of the Geneva Convention

Most Respectfully,
R

It's not wrong at all. It's right on the money. Although you're right about it being the same God, that doesn't do you any good when you are Arab living in the "Jewish State".

You're a liar and an idiot. There ... now disprove that.

 

[SAYIT]

Some Israeli Zionists would like to I'm sure........but they have already Slaughtered over 250,000 plus Palestinians since 1948....

You conveniently forgot to post a link to that "fact" and no matter how often you repeat your lies, they will always be lies. Sorry 'bout dat ... wait ... no I'm not.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeh, but you shop around for answers.

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Definition of an "Occupation" under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is found in Article 42, of the Hague Convention, 1907. But there are two pointsI would like to make:

Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory (See Page 8 and 10)
Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, ICRC

• (Pg 8) Force might also be used by the occupying power within the framework of its obligation to restore and maintain public order in the occupied territory.

• (Pg 10) The presence of foreign forces: this criterion was considered to be the only way to establish and exert firm control over a foreign territory. It was identified as a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation, notably because it makes the link between the notion of effective control and the ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power. It was also agreed that occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign “boots on the ground” were required.

Under occupation law, the sovereign title relating to the occupied territory does not pass to the occupant, who has, therefore, to preserve as far as possible the status quo ante. In other words, the occupying power must respect, as far as possible, the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory. It is however authorized to make changes where necessary to ensure its own security and to uphold its duties under occupation law, particularly the obligation to restore and maintain public order and safety and the obligation to ensure orderly government in the areas concerned.
​

In July 1980, Israel annex East Jerusalem. This was before the establishment of the State of Palestine, while Jerusalem was still under Jordanian Control. If there was an aggrieved party, it would be the Jordanians. And that grievance was settled by the Peace Treaty.

As for the self defense, that is a case by case basis. Article 68 still applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Try me, open a new thread describing specifically all the material made you come up with your conclusion including decisive facts.

No. You address the claim made in the OP. If you're too pussy to do that, then lets see if you have the stones to answer the following questions:

Why do you treat the Palestinian's like garbage?
Why do you trash them 24/7?
Why do you accept any kind of violence done to them?​

Back to you!