OK! What if . . . . . . ?

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

REFERENCE: "Billo_Really, post: 12695670, member: 2873"

Yeah, --- The more the belligerent the protected population interferes with the

When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  • For the most part, Israel has not attempted to annex or establish sovereignty over the territory. Their are a few minor exceptions. They were national imperatives.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  • The Occupation of the West Bank, was established when it was sovereign Jordanian territory. The occupation existed after the Jordanians relinquished control and the territory became ungoverned under international law. The Occupation was tolerant to the self-determination of the PLO when it declared independence with Occupied territory.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  • This is correct. The three international laws are Article 7 - Crime Against Humanity §(1d) deportation or forcible transfer of population, Rome Statutes International Criminal Code (RS-ICC); and Article 8 - War Crimes §(2a) (vii)-1 (RS-ICC); and Article 8 - War Crimes - §2b-viii, (RS-ICC); and ALL three are covered under Rule 130 Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  • Well not exactly. If you read Article 7 §(2d), RS-ICC, you will note the following: "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
  • PLEASE READ FOOTNOTE #13 found on Page#6; ICC Elements of Crimes: The applicable footnotes in the ICC Elements of an Offense state:
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  • This is Rule #103, Collective Punishments.
  • Article 50 - Hague Convention: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
  • Article 33, Fourth Geneva Convention: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 33, GCIV is the base for Article 75 §2.d of Protocol I.
    • The IDF/Police has never arrested or taken into detention the family members, friends, acquaintances, sect, neighbors of a perpetrator of criminal activity covered under Article 68, of the Fourth Geneva Convention --- merely on the basis or association ---; and not merely on the basis or association for other serious activities that endanger the peace, life and security of the territory or Israel interests. They may have made an arrest of multiple persons where probable cause exists in aiding and abetting the perpetrator or where evidence indicates a conspiratorial atmosphere.
    • The destruction of homes associated with a Governments facing insurgencies and terrorism, in which the residence was used to provide cover and concealment to felons and perpetrators. It is a non-violent counter-insurgency technique, used as a means of eroding popular support for further criminal activity and denying jihadist and fedayeen the use as "safe havens." If one looks at Section II. Measures to Prevent and Combat Terrorism, Annex to the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, it says:
      • To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.
  • Now there are other civil reasons (construction, public domain, health and safety: just to name a few) which demand the demolition of homes.
  • There are some demolished that are performed pursuant to military requirements.
  • These are just some of the reasons a facility may be demolished. This is by no means all inclusive.

• Pillage is prohibited.
  • This has never been a problem. The IDF has never been accused to any degree that could be described as the act of looting or plundering Arab Palestinian property as a mean of income or significant profit. While this may be, from time to time, an Article 8 - War Crimes - §2b, RC-ICC problem experienced in third World Nations that have military activities that need to forage for subsistence, it is, without question a frivolous complaint in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

-------------------------------------- REDUNDANT COMPLAINTS JUST TO FILL-UP SPACE ----------------------------------​

• Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

• These five complaints are actually covered in one of the categories already described. (Lesser included offenses.)

These complaint (IMHO) are part of an overall strategy to justify their continued violence and to coerce the political system into backing their lack of legal merit. The mere attempt to put a time limit on ICC investigations is an example of such a frivolous strategy. They would have little or no chance of being won; if the Palestinian complaint reached by to the time of Jordan's severing all ties.

The basic issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict are not about the legal standing and /or ownership of this or that; it is not even about the rights of the indigenous population. It is about a decision that was made by the League of Nations and the United Nations that is trying to be overturned some half a century later by Arab-Palestinians that lost their bid to overturn by political --- then military --- and now Legal Means. It is an attempt to undermine the decisions of the past and reset the clock for the Arab-Palestinians convenience, without paying any consequence for their actions and activities over the last half century. Just as it is immoral to pay honors and gold to the perpetrators of the Munich Olympic Massacre, or to hero worship the perpetrators those that of the Piracy of the MS Achille Lauro and push and Jewish American in a Wheelchair overboard, or when they shot and killed US Navy Seabee then throw his body on the tarmac, or when the Arab-Palestinians of Gaza began firing rockets, and more rockets into Israel. An act of war that no other country would tolerate. We are talking about a culture of people that have no regard for life and no moral equivalency with the West. They are the people that complained about the UN provided school books which did not endorse violence. The same people that send their children to Jihad Summer Camp.

The conflict is not about any of the things that "Billo_Really" quibbles about; although it is easy to fall into that trap. It is about whether or not the world wants another culture like the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Yemenis, the Syrian --- or another nation that is susceptible to radicalized Islamic terrorism to replace Israel. If the region for some reason, loses containment, it will not be long before the surrounding nations will begin to see the effects of Palestinian Terrorists migrating into their countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Palistanians should be resettled and that's it, of course.

Why?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

You want to add to the crisis solely because Israel wants the entire territory?

The last person to suggest "resettling" an entire ethnic population was Hitler. It didn't end well.

No it was the mufti after Hitler died and he wanted to re-settle the Jews into mass graves

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The mufti was Hitlers equal when it came to the holoci=ust of the Jews so stop trying to white wash Palestinian Nazis. The mufti found he did not have the support to mass murder the Jews so he went to Hitler with his ideas and help

A zionut holocaust denier?!?!

Denying history and making up your own 'story' in some attempt to defend zionuts is ridiculous... Look what happened to Netanyahu when he tried to say that the most vile of fascists was actually not so bad!

He ended up looking like and idiot too!

No it was the mufti after Hitler died and he wanted to re-settle the Jews into mass graves

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The mufti was Hitlers equal when it came to the holoci=ust of the Jews so stop trying to white wash Palestinian Nazis. The mufti found he did not have the support to mass murder the Jews so he went to Hitler with his ideas and help

A zionut holocaust denier?!?!

Denying history and making up your own 'story' in some attempt to defend zionuts is ridiculous... Look what happened to Netanyahu when he tried to say that the most vile of fascists was actually not so bad!

He ended up looking like and idiot too!

Where is the holocaust denial .............. request # 148 for evidence

You will see that it's a question... This symbol "?" is a question mark...

The way that you are diluting Hitlers part in the Holocaust is no better than denying that that Holocaust ever happened!

With the holocaust starting BEFORE the meeting between the Grand Mufti and Hitler it's is very clear that you are so terribly wrong.... AGAIN!

I find it incredibly difficult to understand why ANY zionut, including Netanyahu, could even consider finding ways to give Hitler only 50% of the guilt!

Back pedalling again because you cant provide the evidence

Where did I dilute Hitlers part in the holocaust, what I did was place the mufti as an equal

Not according to the evidence, a few murders took place but not on the scale they did after Hitler and the mufti met. read your history

Because no one is, they are giving both mass murderers equal status

 

[Phoenall]

I see no problem with that at all. After all, the Arabs that stayed in Israel and did not become part of the newly created (or want to be) 'Palestinian' identity do enjoy equal rights. They have members in the Knesset and on the Israeli Supreme court.

Whatever the Palestinian's identify with, is none of your (or Israel's) god-damn business!

You have no right, denying them, they're rights. Period.

What rights are they then, as there is no legal right to be an Israeli citizen

Yes there is. All Palestinians whose normal place of residence was inside what became Israel have the right to become Israeli citizens.

Says who. what law makes it so and when did this law come into effect ?

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Confirmed by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Confirmed again by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Confirmed again by resolution 181.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

And that state was British Palestine

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Palestinians like to pull this out of their hat; but it is totally erroneous.

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Confirmed by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Confirmed again by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Confirmed again by resolution 181.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

(COMMENT)

Yes the Treaty of Lausanne does in fact say that in the year 1923; to be in effect in 1924. Article 30, is the application all over the former empire. It is not specifically addressing the territory to which the Mandate (already in force) applies. The successor government to which the Article 30 applies it the Mandate Government. The Palestine to which the Citizenship order applies is the territory to which the Mandate applied. It was written to clarify that these Arabs of the Territory were not to be British Subject with British Citizenship.

I'm surprised that P F Tinmore would even bring up the 1947 Resolution 181. The Arabs did not agree to the Resolution, so it does not apply. By if the had, what it means is that the people in the proposed Jewish State would be citizens of that establish state, and the people in the Arab State would become citizens of the newly established Arab State. But all that was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee.

Don't let P F Tinmore confuse you. No one (of any credibility) on either the Arab side (NAD) or the Israeli side (Chief Negotiator) actually believes this or pursues this. They actually understand what is the intent and purpose was when it was written.

This is a bright "Red Herring" to be sure.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

The Palestinians cannot have their cake and eat it too.

2. When does the law of occupation start to apply?

The rules of international humanitarian law relevant to occupied
territories become applicable whenever territory comes under the effective control of hostile foreign armed forces, even if the occupation meets no armed resistance and there is no fighting.​

(COMMENT)

If the Palestinians of Gaza think Israel does not have enough "effective control" over Gaza and that everyone insists that Gaza is under Israeli control, then Israel should move back into Gaza. Just have Mahmoud Abbas, have the UN Secretary General pass that request over to the Israelis. Two or three divisions should be enough.

Now that is when you would really see Occupation Law applied and start. The Israelis will start a whole new set of SWAT Teams to provide belligerent Article 68 detection, identification and neutralization under the principle of felony evading arrest.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote,

Yes I do remember that.

RoccoR - do you remember when we started a thread on proposed solutions to the IP conflict and creating 2 states? (or am I imagining things?) - I recall it was a good thread but can't find it. Might be nice to wake it up again and see what participation we can get

(COMMENT)

I looked back; and I cannot find it either.

Yes, that would be interesting. As I recall, we had some very workable solutions.

There really are a number of ways that cat can be achieved; if we step outside the normal diplomatic dogma and apply entirely new concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

Why?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

You want to add to the crisis solely because Israel wants the entire territory?

The last person to suggest "resettling" an entire ethnic population was Hitler. It didn't end well.

No it was the mufti after Hitler died and he wanted to re-settle the Jews into mass graves

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The mufti was Hitlers equal when it came to the holoci=ust of the Jews so stop trying to white wash Palestinian Nazis. The mufti found he did not have the support to mass murder the Jews so he went to Hitler with his ideas and help

A zionut holocaust denier?!?!

Denying history and making up your own 'story' in some attempt to defend zionuts is ridiculous... Look what happened to Netanyahu when he tried to say that the most vile of fascists was actually not so bad!

He ended up looking like and idiot too!

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The mufti was Hitlers equal when it came to the holoci=ust of the Jews so stop trying to white wash Palestinian Nazis. The mufti found he did not have the support to mass murder the Jews so he went to Hitler with his ideas and help

A zionut holocaust denier?!?!

Denying history and making up your own 'story' in some attempt to defend zionuts is ridiculous... Look what happened to Netanyahu when he tried to say that the most vile of fascists was actually not so bad!

He ended up looking like and idiot too!

Where is the holocaust denial .............. request # 148 for evidence

You will see that it's a question... This symbol "?" is a question mark...

The way that you are diluting Hitlers part in the Holocaust is no better than denying that that Holocaust ever happened!

With the holocaust starting BEFORE the meeting between the Grand Mufti and Hitler it's is very clear that you are so terribly wrong.... AGAIN!

I find it incredibly difficult to understand why ANY zionut, including Netanyahu, could even consider finding ways to give Hitler only 50% of the guilt!

Back pedalling again because you cant provide the evidence

Where did I dilute Hitlers part in the holocaust, what I did was place the mufti as an equal

Not according to the evidence, a few murders took place but not on the scale they did after Hitler and the mufti met. read your history

Because no one is, they are giving both mass murderers equal status

Wow, it comes down to something when you have to keep reminding certain people what they actually wrote no more than an hour ago!

Your question... "Where did I dilute Hitlers part in the holocaust"... Is answered by YOUR post stating that the Grand Mufti was "equal" when it comes to the Holocaust...

Equal makes Hitler 50% less accountable for the Holocaust!!

Dilution of fact, changing of history!!

Why is it that you are one of the very few 'historians' who believes in what Netanyahu said?

Virtually every prominent historian, including Jewish historians disagreed with Netanyahu, they are sure as hell going to disagree with you...

The 'Phoney version' of history is just that, phoney!

Though why would I expect a zionut like you to bother reading REAL history!

 

[Humanity]

Whatever the Palestinian's identify with, is none of your (or Israel's) god-damn business!

You have no right, denying them, they're rights. Period.

What rights are they then, as there is no legal right to be an Israeli citizen

Yes there is. All Palestinians whose normal place of residence was inside what became Israel have the right to become Israeli citizens.

Says who. what law makes it so and when did this law come into effect ?

In international law, when a state is dissolved and new states are established, “the population follows the change of sovereignty in matters of nationality.”5 As a rule, therefore, citizens of the former state should automatically acquire the nationality of the successor state in which they had already been residing.​

Confirmed by article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Confirmed again by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925.

The automatic, ipso facto, change from Ottoman to Palestinian nationality was dealt with in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Citizenship Order, which declared:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925, shall become Palestinian citizens.”​

Confirmed again by resolution 181.

1. Citizenship Palestinian citizens residing in Palestine...shall, upon the recognition of independence, become citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights.​

And that state was British Palestine

Was it?

Well, I didn't know that!

When was Palestine called "British Palestine"?

 

[Coyote]

RoccoR - do you remember when we started a thread on proposed solutions to the IP conflict and creating 2 states? (or am I imagining things?) - I recall it was a good thread but can't find it. Might be nice to wake it up again and see what participation we can get

Palistanians should be resettled and that's it, of course.

Why?

Why not?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

Cool, but what has all that to do with "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."? It has nothing to do with those palistanian folks, whose singular raison d'etre isn't getting a life and a job, like nations do, but the destruction and looting of what others built, of course.

I think some Arab contries could do more. For example, it's time now for them to start integrating resettling some Palestinians in refugee camps - the Right of Return is not going to happen. Regardless of what you think of the Palestinians they have a just cause - the same cause that the Jews had, when they developed their country through means that included terrorism directed at civilians. Deliberately moving millions of people off land they have inhabited as long as the Jews is not feasible, at least not according to the mores of today, which Israel seems to aspire to. What is a realistic solution - do you have one? Or do you honestly think adding millions to the refugee problem is going to solve anything? Why should Israel have the entire territory, stripped of it's inhabitants? Is a one-state solution, which includes Palestinian citizens feasible at this point? Is a two state solution?

Begs the question what if the Palestinians don't want to be integrated as "Lebanese","Syrians" or "Saudis"? Why didn't the Kurds integrate with Iran, Turkey and Syria? They too have fought for an independant Kurdistan just as long as the Palestinians have been fighting against the Zionist invaders of Palestine. An independant Kurdistan is finally becoming a possibility, 5, 10, 20 years from now who's to say it won't happen for Palestine?

From what I've read, part of the reason the refugee's in the refugee camps have never been "integrated" and in fact are abysmally treated is political. The Arab states refused to recognize them as refugees, which would have meant they would have had to be resettled - as long as they were not refugees, they had to eventually be returnd. It's left them in a limbo of several generations knowing nothing but life in a refugee camp. Likewise, with the Palestinian leadership. Their visions for a future state do not include assimilating the refugees outside the West Bank and Gaza. I don't think that has changed.

 

[Coyote]

RoccoR - do you remember when we started a thread on proposed solutions to the IP conflict and creating 2 states? (or am I imagining things?) - I recall it was a good thread but can't find it. Might be nice to wake it up again and see what participation we can get

Palistanians should be resettled and that's it, of course.

Why?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

You want to add to the crisis solely because Israel wants the entire territory?

The last person to suggest "resettling" an entire ethnic population was Hitler. It didn't end well.

No it was the mufti after Hitler died and he wanted to re-settle the Jews into mass graves

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The mufti was Hitlers equal when it came to the holoci=ust of the Jews so stop trying to white wash Palestinian Nazis. The mufti found he did not have the support to mass murder the Jews so he went to Hitler with his ideas and help

In terms of hating Jews? Yes...he was, as were many. In terms of action? No, not even close. Hitler considered him useful, but was also disparaging. Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution and genocide.

 

[Coyote]

RoccoR - do you remember when we started a thread on proposed solutions to the IP conflict and creating 2 states? (or am I imagining things?) - I recall it was a good thread but can't find it. Might be nice to wake it up again and see what participation we can get

Palistanians should be resettled and that's it, of course.

Why?

Why not?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

Cool, but what has all that to do with "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."? It has nothing to do with those palistanian folks, whose singular raison d'etre isn't getting a life and a job, like nations do, but the destruction and looting of what others built, of course.

I think some Arab contries could do more. For example, it's time now for them to start integrating resettling some Palestinians in refugee camps - the Right of Return is not going to happen. Regardless of what you think of the Palestinians they have a just cause - the same cause that the Jews had, when they developed their country through means that included terrorism directed at civilians. Deliberately moving millions of people off land they have inhabited as long as the Jews is not feasible, at least not according to the mores of today, which Israel seems to aspire to. What is a realistic solution - do you have one? Or do you honestly think adding millions to the refugee problem is going to solve anything? Why should Israel have the entire territory, stripped of it's inhabitants? Is a one-state solution, which includes Palestinian citizens feasible at this point? Is a two state solution?

One-state "solution" is the palistanian wettest of dreams (room full of free hookers excluding), in which they immediately flood that state with millions of "refugees" and redistribute what's not theirs, and jews won't want anything of it, of course. Two-state "solution" is the palistanian nightmare, in which they have to think about jobs and garbage trucks, and palistanian career "refugees", millions of them, that they helped so much to maintain; the current palistanian "government" is fully on the international handouts from foreign donors, that's not fun, running a state, and they want nothing of it. Palistanians have to be resettled. An office of the emigrant assistance is a good start for eurohypocrites, of course.

I don't think the two-state solution is the Palestinian's nightmare. Until recently, the majority of Palestinians favored a two-state solution. What turned public opinion was a growing acceptance of the reality - Israel's policies under Netanyahu and expansions of settlements, prevent the realization of a viable state.

Speaking aof foreign donors - how much does Israel get from foreign donors? How much did it get in it's "start up" years?

 

[Coyote]

Why?

Why not?

As of 2014, there are approximately 4.4 million Palestinians: 1.7 million in the Gaza Strip and 2.7 million in the West Bank. In addition, there are (or were, since who knows the current state) approx 499,189 in refugee camps in Syria; 448,599 in Lebenon and 2,034,641 in camps in Jordan. You are looking at "resettling" 7.5 million people in a region where there are already over 4 million refugees and 7 million internally dispaced people (in Syria) , millions more in the conflicts in Yemen and Libya and Iraq.

Cool, but what has all that to do with "Other Arabs From The Same General Area Who Are In Deep Denial About Never Being Able To Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."? It has nothing to do with those palistanian folks, whose singular raison d'etre isn't getting a life and a job, like nations do, but the destruction and looting of what others built, of course.

I think some Arab contries could do more. For example, it's time now for them to start integrating resettling some Palestinians in refugee camps - the Right of Return is not going to happen. Regardless of what you think of the Palestinians they have a just cause - the same cause that the Jews had, when they developed their country through means that included terrorism directed at civilians. Deliberately moving millions of people off land they have inhabited as long as the Jews is not feasible, at least not according to the mores of today, which Israel seems to aspire to. What is a realistic solution - do you have one? Or do you honestly think adding millions to the refugee problem is going to solve anything? Why should Israel have the entire territory, stripped of it's inhabitants? Is a one-state solution, which includes Palestinian citizens feasible at this point? Is a two state solution?

Cut the aid going to the Palestinians and you would see a very quick about face and them begging for peace talks with Israel. This would be so they could then go begging for more aid to prop up their failed country and economy

While we're at it, let's cut all aid to Israel.

Yeah, hehe. Cool for message board taunts, not feasible in reality - the US have to maintain the reserve currency sphere, so, it's a no-no. Palistan, on the other hand, is, in this respect, a non-productive anus of the earth, whose govt salaries are fully paid by the international donors, so, it's a very feasible yes-yes.

It's quite feasible in reality.

 

[Coyote]

Billo_Really, et al,

REFERENCE: "Billo_Really, post: 12695670, member: 2873"

Yeah, --- The more the belligerent the protected population interferes with the

When a territory is placed under the authority of a hostile army, the rules of international humanitarian law dealing with occupation apply. Occupation confers certain rights and obligations on the occupying power.

Prohibited actions include forcibly transferring protected persons from the occupied territories to the territory of the occupying power.
It is unlawful under the Fourth Geneva Convention for an occupying power to transfer parts of its own population into the territory it occupies. This means that international humanitarian law prohibits the establishment of settlements, as these are a form of population transfer into occupied territory. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited.

• The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
  • For the most part, Israel has not attempted to annex or establish sovereignty over the territory. Their are a few minor exceptions. They were national imperatives.
• Occupation is only a temporary situation, and the rights of the occupant are limited to the extent of that period.
  • The Occupation of the West Bank, was established when it was sovereign Jordanian territory. The occupation existed after the Jordanians relinquished control and the territory became ungoverned under international law. The Occupation was tolerant to the self-determination of the PLO when it declared independence with Occupied territory.
• Collective or individual forcible transfers of population from and within the occupied territory are prohibited.
  • This is correct. The three international laws are Article 7 - Crime Against Humanity §(1d) deportation or forcible transfer of population, Rome Statutes International Criminal Code (RS-ICC); and Article 8 - War Crimes §(2a) (vii)-1 (RS-ICC); and Article 8 - War Crimes - §2b-viii, (RS-ICC); and ALL three are covered under Rule 130 Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
  • Well not exactly. If you read Article 7 §(2d), RS-ICC, you will note the following: "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
  • PLEASE READ FOOTNOTE #13 found on Page#6; ICC Elements of Crimes: The applicable footnotes in the ICC Elements of an Offense state:
    • 12 The term “forcibly” is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power against such person or persons or another person, or by taking advantage of a coercive environment.
    • 13 “Deported or forcibly transferred” is interchangeable with “forcibly displaced”
• Collective punishment is prohibited.
  • This is Rule #103, Collective Punishments.
  • Article 50 - Hague Convention: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
  • Article 33, Fourth Geneva Convention: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 33, GCIV is the base for Article 75 §2.d of Protocol I.
    • The IDF/Police has never arrested or taken into detention the family members, friends, acquaintances, sect, neighbors of a perpetrator of criminal activity covered under Article 68, of the Fourth Geneva Convention --- merely on the basis or association ---; and not merely on the basis or association for other serious activities that endanger the peace, life and security of the territory or Israel interests. They may have made an arrest of multiple persons where probable cause exists in aiding and abetting the perpetrator or where evidence indicates a conspiratorial atmosphere.
    • The destruction of homes associated with a Governments facing insurgencies and terrorism, in which the residence was used to provide cover and concealment to felons and perpetrators. It is a non-violent counter-insurgency technique, used as a means of eroding popular support for further criminal activity and denying jihadist and fedayeen the use as "safe havens." If one looks at Section II. Measures to Prevent and Combat Terrorism, Annex to the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, it says:
      • To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.
  • Now there are other civil reasons (construction, public domain, health and safety: just to name a few) which demand the demolition of homes.
  • There are some demolished that are performed pursuant to military requirements.
  • These are just some of the reasons a facility may be demolished. This is by no means all inclusive.

• Pillage is prohibited.
  • This has never been a problem. The IDF has never been accused to any degree that could be described as the act of looting or plundering Arab Palestinian property as a mean of income or significant profit. While this may be, from time to time, an Article 8 - War Crimes - §2b, RC-ICC problem experienced in third World Nations that have military activities that need to forage for subsistence, it is, without question a frivolous complaint in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

-------------------------------------- REDUNDANT COMPLAINTS JUST TO FILL-UP SPACE ----------------------------------​

• Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
• The taking of hostages is prohibited.
• Reprisals against protected persons or their property are prohibited.
• The confiscation of private property by the occupant is prohibited.
• The destruction or seizure of enemy property is prohibited, unless absolutely required by military necessity during the conduct of hostilities.

• These five complaints are actually covered in one of the categories already described. (Lesser included offenses.)

These complaint (IMHO) are part of an overall strategy to justify their continued violence and to coerce the political system into backing their lack of legal merit. The mere attempt to put a time limit on ICC investigations is an example of such a frivolous strategy. They would have little or no chance of being won; if the Palestinian complaint reached by to the time of Jordan's severing all ties.

The basic issues in the Arab-Israeli Conflict are not about the legal standing and /or ownership of this or that; it is not even about the rights of the indigenous population. It is about a decision that was made by the League of Nations and the United Nations that is trying to be overturned some half a century later by Arab-Palestinians that lost their bid to overturn by political --- then military --- and now Legal Means. It is an attempt to undermine the decisions of the past and reset the clock for the Arab-Palestinians convenience, without paying any consequence for their actions and activities over the last half century. Just as it is immoral to pay honors and gold to the perpetrators of the Munich Olympic Massacre, or to hero worship the perpetrators those that of the Piracy of the MS Achille Lauro and push and Jewish American in a Wheelchair overboard, or when they shot and killed US Navy Seabee then throw his body on the tarmac, or when the Arab-Palestinians of Gaza began firing rockets, and more rockets into Israel. An act of war that no other country would tolerate. We are talking about a culture of people that have no regard for life and no moral equivalency with the West. They are the people that complained about the UN provided school books which did not endorse violence. The same people that send their children to Jihad Summer Camp.

The conflict is not about any of the things that "Billo_Really" quibbles about; although it is easy to fall into that trap. It is about whether or not the world wants another culture like the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Yemenis, the Syrian --- or another nation that is susceptible to radicalized Islamic terrorism to replace Israel. If the region for some reason, loses containment, it will not be long before the surrounding nations will begin to see the effects of Palestinian Terrorists migrating into their countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

So what do you see as a solution?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote,

Yes I do remember that.

RoccoR - do you remember when we started a thread on proposed solutions to the IP conflict and creating 2 states? (or am I imagining things?) - I recall it was a good thread but can't find it. Might be nice to wake it up again and see what participation we can get

(COMMENT)

I looked back; and I cannot find it either.

Yes, that would be interesting. As I recall, we had some very workable solutions.

There really are a number of ways that cat can be achieved; if we step outside the normal diplomatic dogma and apply entirely new concepts.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm going to keep looking - it's got to be there in the swamp somewhere

 

[teddyearp]

Meanwhile Netanyahu has been doing his own incitement.

Please elaborate.

 

[Coyote]

Meanwhile Netanyahu has been doing his own incitement.

Please elaborate.

Speeches implying the Palestinians are Nazi's, telling citizens to go armed etc., scaring them about the Arab Vote - leaders should calm, not inflame situations.

 

[teddyearp]

You do like to be humiliated, don't you. Even the Jewish Virtual Library confirms that as usual I am the purveyor of facts and you are one of the forum's bullshitters.

" The major part of the residential section was evacuated. Some were illegally appropriated by Jewish squatters."

Jerusalem's The Armenian Quarter | Jewish Virtual Library

Boy, you do love to puff yourself up don't you? But you only half answered my question. I acquiesce about Jews in the Armenian quarter, thank you for the info, however, where are the Jews in the Christian quarter? Or do you know the difference?

 

[Billo_Really]

Please observe a moment of silence before I get started. I need to down a few beers and get good and drunk for my response, because your post requires a certain level of "vile and vitriol" for me to begin.



One beer down.



Two beers down.



Thre....ee beers down.



Four..............................down.



Otey, I fink web reddi to be gin.....

REFERENCE: "Billo_Really, post: 12695670, member: 2873"

The Occupation of the West Bank, was established when it was sovereign Jordanian territory.

Wrong. The occupation started after the 6-day war.

The occupation existed after the Jordanians relinquished control and the territory became ungoverned under international law.

Wrong. The occupation existed when Israel refused to leave the land it seized in the war.

The Occupation was tolerant to the self-determination of the PLO when it declared independence with Occupied territory.

Wrong. The occupation has never been tolerant of anything. You can't even fish and farm without getting shot at.

Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.

• Well not exactly.

Offering incentives to white trash settlers (like cheap rent and free housing), is prohibited.

Collective punishment is prohibited.

• This is Rule #103, Collective Punishments.
• Article 50 - Hague Convention: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.
• Article 33, Fourth Geneva Convention: No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 33, GCIV is the base for Article 75 §2.d of Protocol I.
  • The IDF/Police has never arrested or taken into detention the family members, friends, acquaintances, sect, neighbors of a perpetrator of criminal activity covered under Article 68, of the Fourth Geneva Convention --- merely on the basis or association ---; and not merely on the basis or association for other serious activities that endanger the peace, life and security of the territory or Israel interests. They may have made an arrest of multiple persons where probable cause exists in aiding and abetting the perpetrator or where evidence indicates a conspiratorial atmosphere.

Did you say "probable cause"? Is it "probable" over 500 Palestinian's in the West Bank took part in a crime (killing of the 3 teens) they didn't commit? Because that's how many you arrested.

And I'm not even getting into your fascist administrative detention bullshit.

The destruction of homes associated with a Governments facing insurgencies and terrorism, in which the residence was used to provide cover and concealment to felons and perpetrators. It is a non-violent counter-insurgency technique, used as a means of eroding popular support for further criminal activity and denying jihadist and fedayeen the use as "safe havens." If one looks at Section II. Measures to Prevent and Combat Terrorism, Annex to the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, it says:

• To cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens.

• Now there are other civil reasons (construction, public domain, health and safety: just to name a few) which demand the demolition of homes.
• There are some demolished that are performed pursuant to military requirements.
• These are just some of the reasons a facility may be demolished. This is by no means all inclusive.

The fact that you said there are "civil reasons to demolish someone's home", is a classic!

• Pillage is prohibited.
  • This has never been a problem. The IDF has never been accused to any degree that could be described as the act of looting or plundering Arab Palestinian property as a mean of income or significant profit. While this may be, from time to time, an Article 8 - War Crimes - §2b, RC-ICC problem experienced in third World Nations that have military activities that need to forage for subsistence, it is, without question a frivolous complaint in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Tell that to the BDS movement.

The conflict is not about any of the things that "Billo_Really" quibbles about; although it is easy to fall into that trap. It is about whether or not the world wants another culture like the Iranians, the Iraqis, the Yemenis, the Syrian --- or another nation that is susceptible to radicalized Islamic terrorism to replace Israel. If the region for some reason, loses containment, it will not be long before the surrounding nations will begin to see the effects of Palestinian Terrorists migrating into their countries.

Most Respectfully,
R

These incessant data dumps are giving me a head ache.

You vomit a lot of fluff to mask the fact that what you are saying is as disgusting as a Roudy, Hollie or Sally. But you are better than a Phoney, I will give you credit for that.

 

[teddyearp]

I see no problem with that at all. After all, the Arabs that stayed in Israel and did not become part of the newly created (or want to be) 'Palestinian' identity do enjoy equal rights. They have members in the Knesset and on the Israeli Supreme court.

Whatever the Palestinian's identify with, is none of your (or Israel's) god-damn business!

You have no right, denying them, they're rights. Period.

I beg to differ. Quick history lesson, again. When Israel declared Independence in 1948, a portion of the Arab population chose to reject the state and chose not to be a part of it and become combatants instead. Israel didn't deny them anything. They chose to be excluded. And they have continued to be hostile and chose to have the right afforded (or not) to those hostile to the State of Israel. Those Arabs who chose to be a part of the State of Israel do enjoy full rights.

so you see, it was all their own choice. They chose not to be a part of Israel, be combative, and some twenty years afterwards, they invented the 'Palestinian' identity; an identity that refuses to be a part of the State of Israel and therefore by choice not to enjoy the full rights afforded to the citizens thereof.

p.s., you need to brush up on your there, their and they're.

 

[teddyearp]

The Mufti was a minor figure compared to Hitler. Don't whitewash Hitler - that's what the Holocaust Deniers are doing. Hitler found he couldn't expel the Jews so he resorted to extermination.

The Mufti may have been a minor player when it comes to the Holocaust in Germany (or at least there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise), but to imply he wasn't a major player against the Jews in Israel and other parts of the M.E. is just ignorant.