Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!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.
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
The mufti has just as much blood on his hands as Hitler does
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
Karma is bitch if you're one.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!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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
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.....
Wrong. The occupation started after the 6-day war.REFERENCE: "Billo_Really, post: 12695670, member: 2873"
The Occupation of the West Bank, was established when it was sovereign Jordanian territory.
Wrong. The occupation existed when Israel refused to leave the land it seized in the war.The occupation existed after the Jordanians relinquished control and the territory became ungoverned under international law.
Wrong. The occupation has never been tolerant of anything. You can't even fish and farm without getting shot at.The Occupation was tolerant to the self-determination of the PLO when it declared independence with Occupied territory.
Offering incentives to white trash settlers (like cheap rent and free housing), is prohibited.Transfers of the civilian population of the occupying power into the occupied territory, regardless whether forcible or voluntary, are prohibited.
- Well not exactly.
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.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.
And I'm not even getting into your fascist administrative detention bullshit.
The fact that you said there are "civil reasons to demolish someone's home", is a classic!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.
Tell that to the BDS movement.
- 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.
These incessant data dumps are giving me a head ache.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
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.
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
Yes when you realise that under international law they could shoot them when they get in the way of military action. Red crescent does not carry the same weight as Red Cross, or the same protection after they carried weapons, rockets and terrorists around gaza
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.
montelatici, et al,
This is nonsense.
(COMMENT)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.
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.
I find it odd, that in 1948, you think 70% of the population, should be like 30% of the population?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.
Then stop blaming "they", for all the problems.p.s., you need to brush up on your there, their and they're.
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
Yes when you realise that under international law they could shoot them when they get in the way of military action. Red crescent does not carry the same weight as Red Cross, or the same protection after they carried weapons, rockets and terrorists around gaza
Which international law would that be Phoney?
Not too sure what "military action" was taking place there....???
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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
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
That is NO proof of Palestine being called "British Palestine"
So, when was Palestine called "British Palestine"?
Let me help you....
IT NEVER WAS!
The mufti has just as much blood on his hands as Hitler does
So Hitler is looking more and more like a 'good guy' by your comments!
Karma is bitch if you're one.Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
Yes when you realise that under international law they could shoot them when they get in the way of military action. Red crescent does not carry the same weight as Red Cross, or the same protection after they carried weapons, rockets and terrorists around gaza
Which international law would that be Phoney?
Not too sure what "military action" was taking place there....???
Interfering with the police in the execution of their duty. So you did not see the terrorist in the first 30 seconds of footage ?
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!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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
He went round the death camps and thanked the mass murderers personally for the work they were doing. He worked with the Nazis on devising ways to kill the "untermensch". It is you that is incapable of accepting facts and see's everything through islamonazi goggles.
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
That is NO proof of Palestine being called "British Palestine"
So, when was Palestine called "British Palestine"?
Let me help you....
IT NEVER WAS!
So who issued the passports, currency and stamps for "Palestine" from 1925 until 1948 it was the British Palestine mandate
Karma is bitch if you're one.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.
Clearly not just MY "fantasy world" it's the "fantasy world" of historians worldwide!
What part did the Grand Mufti play in the Holocaust?
Your extreme zionut point of view blinds you to fact an truth!
That Phoney, makes you a fool... You are incapable of accepting facts that are indisputable!
Netanyahu criticized for Hitler, mufti Holocaust remarks - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/w...red-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=0
You think that posting a video showing IDF randomly pepper spraying Red Crescent workers and press is an example of IDF being the tolerant?
Police officer*
