OK! What if . . . . . . ?

[Hollie]

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.

Actually, your brain being soaked in alcohol makes your nonsensical rambling above consistent with your usual nonsensical rambling.

You should take some time to read the Hamas Charter, study your islamo-history, learn the concept of the islamo-waqf and read your Koran for an understanding of islamo-fascism and why the Pal'istanians have no intention of a two state solution.

Islamo-fascism, like Nazi ideology, only understands a final solution relative to Jooooooooos in the Islamist Middle East.

 

[montelatici]

Let's cut through Rocco's nonsense starting with his attempt to justify the Israelis destruction of homes of relatives of individuals who have taken up armed resistance actions against the occupying forces.

Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention, establishes that: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population for the acts of individuals and for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides a more concrete and absolute prohibition of collective punishment by emphasizing the principle of individual responsibility.

To wit:

"No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 50 demands a very high degree of responsibility, that of being „jointly and severally responsible‟, before punishment may be imposed and it does offer a considerably high degree of protection from collective punishment.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention is derived from Article 50 of the Hague Regulations and provides a much clearer and unambiguous prohibition of collective punishment than its predecessor. It sets down that “no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed”. This provision re-affirms the individual nature of punishment, that “responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons who have themselves not committed the acts complained of”

The "Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention" points out that the prohibition of collective punishment in Article 33 “does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons”. Rocco's silly attempt to justify home destruction because it does not constitute legal punishment is the usual type of crap we hear from these disgusting racists that make it clear they despise Arabs whether Christian or Muslim.

The scope of the prohibition is broad, encompassing penalties "of any kind‟ whether inflicted by a court or by any executive organ of government. The official Commentary to the Additional Protocols similarly advocates that “the concept of collective punishment…should be understood in the widest sense, and concerns not only penalties imposed in the normal judicial process, but also any other kind of sanction”. It is clear therefore that persons must be personally responsible for the commission of an offense before any punishment may be meted out upon them for that crime. Home destruction is punishment.

The second sentence of Article 33 sets out that “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited”. It doesn't have to a legal proceeding or arrest of relatives. The prohibition on the use of collective penalties here is a simple restating of the rule set down in the earlier sentence. Adding a prohibition on measures of intimidation or terrorism of protected persons was deemed necessary because of the earlier practice by belligerents of “resorting to intimidatory measures to terrorize the population… to prevent hostile acts”. Such collective measures “strike at innocent and guilty alike… are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice”. Highlighting the similarity of collective punishments and measures of intimidation or terrorism is appropriate (contrary to Rocco's nonsense) because Israeli measures that are claimed to be legitimately punitive in nature are often imposed solely to oppress and terrorize into submission a the Palestinians, in furtherance of the Israeli's goals.

The 1907 Hague Convention and its annexed regulations are unanimously viewed as being declaratory of customary international law. Additionally, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that the rules laid down in the convention were, by 1939, declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Therefore, Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, outlawing the imposition of penalties on persons who cannot be regarded as "jointly and severally responsible‟ for the acts of complained of, is a binding rule of customary international law. Hence Israel, my dear Rocco, has been flouting and breaking International Law. Your nonsensical, hateful justification of the evil of Israeli crimes is just par for the course for the hateful partisan ideologue you are.

 

[teddyearp]

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.

Let's not 'headline' stuff, please. Netanyahu's speech did not imply that all Palestinians are Nazi's, his speech only reminded the world of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem's ties with the Nazis. It did overplay the Mufti's role in the Holocaust in Germany, to that I agree.

It was the mayor of Jerusalem that encouraged Israeli's that have handgun permits to go ahead and carry in light of the recent attacks on Israeli's in Jerusalem. Not Netanyahu.

But where is your rebuff of Abbas' inflammations? Do you not see or are you comfortably ignoring his "filthy feet" statements? And that is just one of many lately.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is nonsense.

Let's cut through Rocco's nonsense starting with his attempt to justify the Israelis destruction of homes of relatives of individuals who have taken up armed resistance actions against the occupying forces.

Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention, establishes that: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population for the acts of individuals and for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides a more concrete and absolute prohibition of collective punishment by emphasizing the principle of individual responsibility.

To wit:

"No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 50 demands a very high degree of responsibility, that of being „jointly and severally responsible‟, before punishment may be imposed and it does offer a considerably high degree of protection from collective punishment.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention is derived from Article 50 of the Hague Regulations and provides a much clearer and unambiguous prohibition of collective punishment than its predecessor. It sets down that “no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed”. This provision re-affirms the individual nature of punishment, that “responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons who have themselves not committed the acts complained of”

The "Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention" points out that the prohibition of collective punishment in Article 33 “does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons”. Rocco's silly attempt to justify home destruction because it does not constitute legal punishment is the usual type of crap we hear from these disgusting racists that make it clear they despise Arabs whether Christian or Muslim.

The scope of the prohibition is broad, encompassing penalties "of any kind‟ whether inflicted by a court or by any executive organ of government. The official Commentary to the Additional Protocols similarly advocates that “the concept of collective punishment…should be understood in the widest sense, and concerns not only penalties imposed in the normal judicial process, but also any other kind of sanction”. It is clear therefore that persons must be personally responsible for the commission of an offense before any punishment may be meted out upon them for that crime. Home destruction is punishment.

The second sentence of Article 33 sets out that “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited”. It doesn't have to a legal proceeding or arrest of relatives. The prohibition on the use of collective penalties here is a simple restating of the rule set down in the earlier sentence. Adding a prohibition on measures of intimidation or terrorism of protected persons was deemed necessary because of the earlier practice by belligerents of “resorting to intimidatory measures to terrorize the population… to prevent hostile acts”. Such collective measures “strike at innocent and guilty alike… are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice”. Highlighting the similarity of collective punishments and measures of intimidation or terrorism is appropriate (contrary to Rocco's nonsense) because Israeli measures that are claimed to be legitimately punitive in nature are often imposed solely to oppress and terrorize into submission a the Palestinians, in furtherance of the Israeli's goals.

The 1907 Hague Convention and its annexed regulations are unanimously viewed as being declaratory of customary international law. Additionally, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that the rules laid down in the convention were, by 1939, declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Therefore, Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, outlawing the imposition of penalties on persons who cannot be regarded as "jointly and severally responsible‟ for the acts of complained of, is a binding rule of customary international law. Hence Israel, my dear Rocco, has been flouting and breaking International Law. Your nonsensical, hateful justification of the evil of Israeli crimes is just par for the course for the hateful partisan ideologue you are.

(COMMENT)

Any structure can be destroyed by the Occupation Power if that structure presents a security problem. Don't believe for one moment it it cannot. It is not categorized as a "collective punishment." It is material associate with a criminal enterprise. It is the same as when law enforcement confiscate, impound, and/or destroy materials or facilities that are used in any number of criminal facilitations. More often then not, it is used in counter-drug operations. But it can be used for suppress espionage, sabotage, subversion and terrorism.

Again, the categorization of almost all the demolition accounts have some connection with a security issue (but not exclusively). Once you understand that it is not a "collective punishment," then all this other argument melts away.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This is nonsense.

Let's cut through Rocco's nonsense starting with his attempt to justify the Israelis destruction of homes of relatives of individuals who have taken up armed resistance actions against the occupying forces.

Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention, establishes that: No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population for the acts of individuals and for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides a more concrete and absolute prohibition of collective punishment by emphasizing the principle of individual responsibility.

To wit:

"No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Article 50 demands a very high degree of responsibility, that of being „jointly and severally responsible‟, before punishment may be imposed and it does offer a considerably high degree of protection from collective punishment.

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention is derived from Article 50 of the Hague Regulations and provides a much clearer and unambiguous prohibition of collective punishment than its predecessor. It sets down that “no protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed”. This provision re-affirms the individual nature of punishment, that “responsibility is personal and it will no longer be possible to inflict penalties on persons who have themselves not committed the acts complained of”

The "Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention" points out that the prohibition of collective punishment in Article 33 “does not refer to punishments inflicted under penal law, i.e. sentences pronounced by a court after due process of law, but penalties of any kind inflicted on persons or entire groups of persons”. Rocco's silly attempt to justify home destruction because it does not constitute legal punishment is the usual type of crap we hear from these disgusting racists that make it clear they despise Arabs whether Christian or Muslim.

The scope of the prohibition is broad, encompassing penalties "of any kind‟ whether inflicted by a court or by any executive organ of government. The official Commentary to the Additional Protocols similarly advocates that “the concept of collective punishment…should be understood in the widest sense, and concerns not only penalties imposed in the normal judicial process, but also any other kind of sanction”. It is clear therefore that persons must be personally responsible for the commission of an offense before any punishment may be meted out upon them for that crime. Home destruction is punishment.

The second sentence of Article 33 sets out that “collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited”. It doesn't have to a legal proceeding or arrest of relatives. The prohibition on the use of collective penalties here is a simple restating of the rule set down in the earlier sentence. Adding a prohibition on measures of intimidation or terrorism of protected persons was deemed necessary because of the earlier practice by belligerents of “resorting to intimidatory measures to terrorize the population… to prevent hostile acts”. Such collective measures “strike at innocent and guilty alike… are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice”. Highlighting the similarity of collective punishments and measures of intimidation or terrorism is appropriate (contrary to Rocco's nonsense) because Israeli measures that are claimed to be legitimately punitive in nature are often imposed solely to oppress and terrorize into submission a the Palestinians, in furtherance of the Israeli's goals.

The 1907 Hague Convention and its annexed regulations are unanimously viewed as being declaratory of customary international law. Additionally, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg held that the rules laid down in the convention were, by 1939, declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Therefore, Article 50 of the Hague Regulations, outlawing the imposition of penalties on persons who cannot be regarded as "jointly and severally responsible‟ for the acts of complained of, is a binding rule of customary international law. Hence Israel, my dear Rocco, has been flouting and breaking International Law. Your nonsensical, hateful justification of the evil of Israeli crimes is just par for the course for the hateful partisan ideologue you are.

(COMMENT)

Any structure can be destroyed by the Occupation Power if that structure presents a security problem. Don't believe for one moment it it cannot. It is not categorized as a "collective punishment." It is material associate with a criminal enterprise. It is the same as when law enforcement confiscate, impound, and/or destroy materials or facilities that are used in any number of criminal facilitations. More often then not, it is used in counter-drug operations. But it can be used for suppress espionage, sabotage, subversion and terrorism.

Again, the categorization of almost all the demolition accounts have some connection with a security issue (but not exclusively). Once you understand that it is not a "collective punishment," then all this other argument melts away.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, you are spouting nonsense. It is collective punishment and your justification of collective punishment is merely pitiful. A case of cognitive dissonance and lack of formal education.

 

[teddyearp]

<snip>and lack of formal education.

Oh shit. Here he goes again. There is no way anyone can know as much as Monti unless we have 'formal' education. You can take your 'formal' education and stuff it.

I have had to re-learn just about everything I used to think I knew; those things I learned in the so called 'halls of knowledge'.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

View attachment 53680​

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Legal framework for Palestinian refugees.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

I find it odd, that in 1948, you think 70% of the population, should be like 30% of the population?

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

Then stop blaming "they", for all the problems.

 

[Hollie]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

View attachment 53680​

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Legal framework for Palestinian refugees.

Pointless philandering to perpetuate welfare fraud for an invented people with an invented national identity.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, if you understand the unique CERI definition of "Palestinian Refugees," as it compares to all the other as defined by the UNHRC, you can understand how these number she present are out of the limitation.

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

View attachment 53680​

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Legal framework for Palestinian refugees.

(COMMENT)

She compare the handling of the UNHCR and how effective they are --- in comparison to the effective UNsuccessful outcomes of the UNRWA. This definition is not backed-up by a binding resolution. But she does confuses the definition. She tries to use both resolution 194 and the Generalized UNHRC Definition. And she completely overlooks the fact that the West Bank refugee were once Jordanians and drawing their protection from Jordan (1950 to 1988) ---and then --- later they became citizen of Palestine (1988 to Present).

This is nothing more than a platform for the social handout of a group of Arab-Palestine that have promoted conflict for 67 years, and not attempted to better themselves in terms of infrastructure, economic and commercial erectors, or resource development. Now the Arab-Palestinian claims that the Occupation prohibited this. But that is easily discounted when one looks at the two decade under Jordanian citizenship and the fact that they did nt improve themselves but continued to promote disturbances in both Israel and Jordan (two assassinations attempts against the King and an insurrection).

This is the reason why the UNRWA is being looked at as something that needs to be disbanded.

While none of the EU or Arab League states are going to renounce the Palestinians, they are not going to support a combat operation against the Israelis. No liberation operation for any Arab State have proven successful since the end of WWII. They all resulted in the Arabs biting the hand that helped them.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, if you understand the unique CERI definition of "Palestinian Refugees," as it compares to all the other as defined by the UNHRC, you can understand how these number she present are out of the limitation.

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

View attachment 53680​

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Legal framework for Palestinian refugees.

(COMMENT)

She compare the handling of the UNHCR and how effective they are --- in comparison to the effective UNsuccessful outcomes of the UNRWA. This definition is not backed-up by a binding resolution. But she does confuses the definition. She tries to use both resolution 194 and the Generalized UNHRC Definition. And she completely overlooks the fact that the West Bank refugee were once Jordanians and drawing their protection from Jordan (1950 to 1988) ---and then --- later they became citizen of Palestine (1988 to Present).

This is nothing more than a platform for the social handout of a group of Arab-Palestine that have promoted conflict for 67 years, and not attempted to better themselves in terms of infrastructure, economic and commercial erectors, or resource development. Now the Arab-Palestinian claims that the Occupation prohibited this. But that is easily discounted when one looks at the two decade under Jordanian citizenship and the fact that they did nt improve themselves but continued to promote disturbances in both Israel and Jordan (two assassinations attempts against the King and an insurrection).

This is the reason why the UNRWA is being looked at as something that needs to be disbanded.

While none of the EU or Arab League states are going to renounce the Palestinians, they are not going to support a combat operation against the Israelis. No liberation operation for any Arab State have proven successful since the end of WWII. They all resulted in the Arabs biting the hand that helped them.

Most Respectively,
R

That isn't what I got out of the video.

 

[Phoenall]

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 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!

Only in your fantasy world, in reality it makes the mufti 100% culpable for his part in the holocaust. No dilution of fact or changes of history as this has been the case since 1941. Why is that you are one of the even fewer people that LIE about what was said, is it your Jew hatred consuming your life. Then provide the links supporting your claim, or will this be request 153 ignored.
The rest is just made up disinformation used because you don't have any intelligent answers to the posts.

 

[Phoenall]

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"?

When it started issuing these

 

[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

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.

Was he, so he went out and personally oversaw the murder of every single "untermensch" . or did he just pass on the recommendations from his staff on what would be the best solution to their problems. The mufti has just as much blood on his hands as Hitler does and should have been made to stand trial. If he had then we would not be arguing over this subject 70 years later, he would have been executed and disposed of as an object lesson to all. If only Hitler was responsible then why were over 100 Germans tried for their part in the holocaust ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, if you understand the unique CERI definition of "Palestinian Refugees," as it compares to all the other as defined by the UNHRC, you can understand how these number she present are out of the limitation.

Coyote, et al,

Yes, I believe that is at least a very contributing reason.

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.

(COMMENT)

The Arab World let the UNRWA set the criteria for refugee status of Palestinians separate and distinct. All the refugees in the world have one definition and the Palestinians have another. And it is in part for the very reason that our friend "Coyote" cites. Even in 1948, the remainder of the Arab League had a reluctance to accept Palestinians.

The fact that the Arabs had such and influence on the Consolidated Eligibility and Registration Instructions (CERI) speaks volumes. Some argue UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) would resettle the refugees, robbing them of their Right to Return (ROR) to their homes. What the Arab community really don't want is the Arab-Palestinian to be resettled in their territories. [See: EXPLODING THE MYTHS: UNRWA, UNHCR AND THE PALESTINE REFUGEES] [See the UNRWA vs UNHCR Comparison Chart]

There is a very revealing paperback called ROADBLOCK TO PEACE How the UN Perpetuates the Arab-Israeli Conflict: UNRWA Policies Reconsidered. In it it quite convincingly explains how the conflict is perpetuated. Similarly for the professional researcher, their is a view that the Arab-Palestinians will be: Forever Refugees? A Human Rights Based Approach to the Perpetuated Palestinian Refugee Crisis.

View attachment 53680​

As "Coyote" infers, it is economically AND diplomatically entwined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Legal framework for Palestinian refugees.

(COMMENT)

She compare the handling of the UNHCR and how effective they are --- in comparison to the effective UNsuccessful outcomes of the UNRWA. This definition is not backed-up by a binding resolution. But she does confuses the definition. She tries to use both resolution 194 and the Generalized UNHRC Definition. And she completely overlooks the fact that the West Bank refugee were once Jordanians and drawing their protection from Jordan (1950 to 1988) ---and then --- later they became citizen of Palestine (1988 to Present).

This is nothing more than a platform for the social handout of a group of Arab-Palestine that have promoted conflict for 67 years, and not attempted to better themselves in terms of infrastructure, economic and commercial erectors, or resource development. Now the Arab-Palestinian claims that the Occupation prohibited this. But that is easily discounted when one looks at the two decade under Jordanian citizenship and the fact that they did nt improve themselves but continued to promote disturbances in both Israel and Jordan (two assassinations attempts against the King and an insurrection).

This is the reason why the UNRWA is being looked at as something that needs to be disbanded.

While none of the EU or Arab League states are going to renounce the Palestinians, they are not going to support a combat operation against the Israelis. No liberation operation for any Arab State have proven successful since the end of WWII. They all resulted in the Arabs biting the hand that helped them.

Most Respectively,
R

That isn't what I got out of the video.

Of course you didn't, you got the islamonazi version of events because your computer is programmed to do that.

 

[Phoenall]

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?

How about a link showing this as I cant find any reference to it anywhere.
Israel got nothing until the late 1970's when the US realised it had a perfect spy network that cost nothing. Then the aid did not start until the Egyptians and Jordanians demanded blood money from the US to sign peace treaties.

 

[Phoenall]

Why not?
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.

Not if you stand outside and look at the ramifications for the US. They will no longer have the ability to subsidise their defence contractors and will have to force them to stand alone in a cut throat international market. They will no longer be able to buy top class medical aids at cost and will have to pay full price. They will no longer have a R&D department that cost nothing to maintain, and would lose many experts in far too many fields. Lastly you would lose your international credit rating and see the world markets clamouring for Israeli goods because they are good quality at a low price.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So no actual incitements when you look, just truth telling and informative measures to be taken after the threats coming from the Palestinians

 

[Phoenall]

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.

So no actual incitements when you look, just truth telling and informative measures to be taken after the threats coming from the Palestinians