Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[toomuchtime_]

Uh oh, the kid will probably be called a collaborator and killed by his own family.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation forces re-detained Palestinian lawmaker Khalida Jarrar, an official of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, after raiding her home in Ramallah, last night.

 

[Coyote]

The occupations are very different. Under Jordanian rule the Palestinians had passports, they could vote, farm, build.

In Israel their homes and farms get bulldozed. They get shot. They cannot travel. They cannot build. Their land gets pulled from under their feet.

All lies. There is no Israeli occupation, rather there is security control. The Arabs in the territories are citizens of the PA and receive travel documents from the PA that are widely recognized by other countries. They have the right to vote in PA elections and are free to build and farm in areas A and B, as per the Oslo agreement. Only terrorists are shot and only the homes of terrorists are bulldozed. None of them are having their land taken away from them and Israeli courts have restored land that may have been taken unjustly in the past.

Correction. Only PALESTINIAN terrorists.

My point, of course, is that the only Palestinians who are shot are terrorists and then only when it is not possible to subdue them without putting others in danger. You, of course, are only capable of seeing this situation in racist terms.

That isn’t true. Non terrorists have been shot, though to be fair, compared to many, the IDF is exceedingly careful of civilian casualties.

How many homes of Jewish terrorists have been bulldozed? I will wait.

Oh...and enlighten me on all this supposed racism because I am not seeing it.

You post this because you are unable to see things except through racist eyes. Only terrorists have been de;oberately shot and only when they could not be subdued in other ways without endangering more people. I am unaware of any cases in which Jewish terrorists could not be subdued without lethal force. Clearly, it would never occur to you to ask about the circumstances under which terrorists have been shot.

What is racist about what what I said? Your fall back seems to be to scream racist.

What have I said that is racist?

You did not answer my question. Why is it Jewish terrorists do not get their family homes bulldozed?

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, toomuchtime_, et al,

Well, I don't think that is what International Law says.

Correction. Only PALESTINIAN terrorists.

(COMMENT)

What I think it says, and what is being done, in the case obligations under international law of is this:

1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

​

This comes under the much broader heading of “Denying Safe Haven to those who Finance, Plan, Support or Commit Terrorist Acts or Provide Safe Havens, and Preventing Terrorists from Abusing the Asylum System, in conformity with International Law”. This can be seen in more detail in the Open briefing of the Counter-Terrorism Committee.

This is the implementation of clearing property that “constitutes a severe security threat and can provide cover to suicide bombers and other terrorists hiding among civilian population.”

(OTHER CONCERNS)

This is not to be confused with the process by which private property is taken for the purpose of public use. Prior to the taking, the property is said to be “condemned property”, meaning that it has been marked for destruction or modification in order that the plot of land can be used for public use.

And we should not get this confused with the condemnation of "substandard buildings" under the provisions of the Occupation Law, which, in addition thereto, presents an immediate and imminent threat to public safety. Such threats may arise by virtue of numerous circumstances such as, but not limited to, substantial risk of collapse or danger of fire.


Most Respectfully,
R

The original premise was: only the homes of terrorists are bulldozed.

This is not true. The vast number of homes bulldozed is for Israel to steal the land.

Of course that is not true. There have been just a few instances when Palestinian owned land was unjustly taken and Israeli courts have made adjustments to these cases overwhelmingly in favor of the Palestinians.

There have been more than a few, when you you look at property confiscated through absentee land owner laws and “good faith” laws that rule in favor of Israel, not the land owner.
Israel says will legalize West Bank homes built on private Palestinian land

but I agree, the bull dozing of homes is in retaliatian to terrorism. But only Palestinian terrorists.

Seventy years ago after the Arabs tried to overthrow the new Israeli government and then fled to neighboring states there was a redistribution of their property, and there was no rational alternative for the new state of Israel. Since then, Arab and Jewish Israelis have been treated equally under the law.

Under Israeli law, Israeli courts have found that no settlements can be built or sustained on land owned by Palestinians, and there have been several cases in which the courts have ordered the government to demolish settlements the court has found to be on Palestinian land. If the Palestinians had brought their claims to Israeli courts, and the court found they owned it, the government would not be able to legalize the settlements unless it could prove it was necessary for security purposes. Clearly, the Palestinians who claim the land belongs to them have chosen not to pursue their claims through legal processes.

To date, Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria take up only about 1% of the land, and the total amount of land that has been approved for development is only 8%, so why all this hysteria about Israeli settlements?

Not entirely true. There was a war. Palestinians fled either out of conflict or were driven out by Jewish militias. After that, most were not permitted back and absentee landowner laws were instituted to make it easier to confiscate their land. In comparison, the laws made it quite easy for Jews to reclaim their land, but much more difficult for Palestinians to. As a result, Israel was able to take a great deal of land. These laws are still in effect.

Today, if settlements are built on privately owned land, one of several things can happen. The courts can order it be returned to the rightful owners or they can “compensate” the rightful owner (which is meaningless if it is your property being wrongfully taken). “National security” is a term used to cover a multitude of landgrab sins that don’t necessarily have anything to do with security (not unique to Israel) that simply transfers land to settlements.

Palestinian land seized by Israeli army, given to settlers:NGO

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Coyote]

That's just a silly sound byte.

When a squatter builds a shack in the middle of Central Park, it doesn't become his land.
Neither law enforcement is "stealing land" when applied to illegal Arab settlements.

So, Palestinians building on their own land is an illegal settlement.

Well...as far as I can tell, Arab Israelis have not been granted permits to create new settlements in the Area C, they are frequently denied building and expansion permits, and their government invests far less in their infrastructure than in that of it's Jewish citizens, even to the point of providing infrastructure to illegal (under Israeli law) settlements. So it is certainly inequitable. The other thing that increases the divide is Israel's Jewish citizens get a lot of funding from outside donors that is expressly for Jewish settlement. I dont think it's Arab citizens do to same extent. So there is both a political and financial preference for expanding Jewish housing.

More racist nonsense from you. First, under Israeli law, no Arab Israeli can be excluded from any housing in Israel or area C because of being an Arab, so the settlements you refer to as Jewish are open to Arab Israelis as well.

The same rules concerning building apply to all Israelis. No building is allowed unless it fits into an approved master plan for the area either in Israeli or C. It takes at least two years from the time an application is submitted before construction can begin. There are only a few cases in which Palestinians have followed all the rules and in those cases building permits have been issued.

What is racist about it simple facts?

Here is a simple question: how many new legal Arab Israeli settlements have been started in Area C?

How many illegal Jewish settlements get government supported infrastructure? Even when illegally built on Palestinian owned lan (per the Israeli courts).
Israeli government-funded council spent millions on illegal settlements


How about Arab settlements?


Now tell me how what I said is racist.

Again, you are clearly only capable of seeing things through racist eyes. First, there is no such thing as a Jewish or Arab settlement under Israeli law since these communities must be open to all Israelis regardless of race or ethnicity.

Second, how stupid or biased do you have to be to talk about how many settlements proposed by Arabs have been approved without first talking about how settlements have been proposed by Arab Israelis? Clearly, you are incapable of thinking about anything but race.

How many Area C settlements include Arabs?

How many settlements are Jewish only?

How many are Arab only?

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, et al,

BLUF: You cannot look at stone-throwing by Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) as anything less than the incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

Let's see if we can clarify something here. A formal definition of terrorism has never really been established in contemporary times. That is principally because the threshold that you, me, and P F Tinmore (ad infinitum) have in which we become scared (or terrorized) or come to fear great sorrow, is different. Those of us that are married have come to know this in our families and extended families have come to know this. And over time, this threshold changes. When I was young, I did all kinds of crazy things that were enormously dangerous that, today, I simply cannot do anymore for some fear of one thing or another. And it is in this definition that both people and nations (more so) find it difficult to express in any kind of definition (black, gray and white).

If stone throwers are terrorists then the ones that have lobbed stones at Palestinians, including one that killed a Palestinian mother; the ones that kidnapped an Arab boy, poured gasoline on him and burned him alive; the ones that firebombed a house in Duma killing most of the family inside. If you consider non lethal assaults and property destruction to be terrorism then there are more examples.

Did any Jewish terrorist homes get bulldozed?

(COMMENT)

Today, the closest thing that a definition has come to being defined extends from Article 1, Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938), which was delayed being formally accepted in 1938 by WWII.

View attachment 293467
​

You will notice that even then, the dozen or so nations from all over the world (including Egypt) implanted the idea that incorporated the notion of "a state of terror in the minds of particular persons, or a group of persons or the general population" as a domain of applicability. Even today, the ideas behind that of terrorism have changed in its magnitude:

Renewing its unwavering commitment to strengthening international cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and reaffirming that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed

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

Expressing concern that terrorists may benefit from transnational organized crime in some regions, including from the trafficking of arms, persons, drugs and cultural property and from the illicit trade in natural resources, including oil, and in oil products, modular refineries and related material, gold and other precious metals and stones, minerals, charcoal and wildlife, as well as from kidnapping for ransom and other crimes, including extortion, money-laundering and bank robbery, and condemning the destruction of cultural heritage perpetrated by terrorist groups in some countries,

Criminal Acts directed against a State with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

o deny terrorist groups safe haven, freedom of operations, movement and recruitment and financial, material or political support, which endanger national, regional and international peace and security, and to bring to justice or, where appropriate, extradite, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, the perpetrators of terrorist acts or any person who The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy ReviewA/RES/72/2849/1718-10508supports, facilitates or participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning or preparation of terrorist acts

The mere act of "stone-throwing" is NOT an act of terrorism, in and by itself. It is the reason and intent behind it. It is a criminal act that if committed by the Hostile Arab Palestinian against the Civil/Military Authority of the Israeli Government in the West Bank, is directly punishable under Article 68, of The Fourth Geneva Convention.

WHEN these simple acts are committed → solely with the intent to harm the Occupying Power, members of the occupying forces or administration, or the installations used by them, in the furtherance of destabilizing the Government of Israel (in the specific context), it becomes a form of direct support to terrorism that encourages even further acts of violence.

Interpreting and implementing those international obligations which prohibit all advocacy that constitutes the incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). The recommendations also apply to some of the provisions contained in Article 4 of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”).


Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, most stone throwing is, despite bad outcomes, the result of angry kids...not terrorism, right?

But if the intent is to terrorize a particular group of people...then it becomes terrorism doesn’t it? So if Palestinians do it for that reason and Jews do it for that reason,they are the same, yes?

 

[Coyote]

My point, of course, is that the only Palestinians who are shot are terrorists and then only when it is not possible to subdue them without putting others in danger. You, of course, are only capable of seeing this situation in racist terms.

That isn’t true. Non terrorists have been shot, though to be fair, compared to many, the IDF is exceedingly careful of civilian casualties.

How many homes of Jewish terrorists have been bulldozed? I will wait.

Oh...and enlighten me on all this supposed racism because I am not seeing it.

Besides Baruch Goldstein, how many Jewish terrorists have there been?

If stone throwers are terrorists then the ones that have lobbed stones at Palestinians, including one that killed a Palestinian mother; the ones that kidnapped an Arab boy, poured gasoline on him and burned him alive; the ones that firebombed a house in Duma killing most of the family inside. If you consider non lethal assaults and property destruction to be terrorism then there are more examples.

Did any Jewish terrorist homes get bulldozed?

Those are all terrible incidents. Still, it's 3 incidents compared to the hundreds of terrorist attacks of Arabs against Jews.

Btw, I didn't make this comparison of numbers only in order to portray the Arabs as animals. I'm only answering your question. Hundreds of incidents as opposed to 3, shows why demolition of homes is a regular practice concerning Arab terrorists. 3 or 4 oddball Israeli incidents in over 70 years don't need this kind of deterring practice. And the killers of that Arab boy (who died as a result of a national tragedy) are serving life sentences. (The boy's father refused to let his son's name go into a memorial for Israel's terror victims.)

Something to consider. Bulldozing homes is a form of collective punishment. It also is not a deterrent. Why do it?

 

[Coyote]

Correction. Only PALESTINIAN terrorists.

My point, of course, is that the only Palestinians who are shot are terrorists and then only when it is not possible to subdue them without putting others in danger. You, of course, are only capable of seeing this situation in racist terms.

That isn’t true. Non terrorists have been shot, though to be fair, compared to many, the IDF is exceedingly careful of civilian casualties.

How many homes of Jewish terrorists have been bulldozed? I will wait.

Oh...and enlighten me on all this supposed racism because I am not seeing it.

Besides Baruch Goldstein, how many Jewish terrorists have there been?

If stone throwers are terrorists then the ones that have lobbed stones at Palestinians, including one that killed a Palestinian mother; the ones that kidnapped an Arab boy, poured gasoline on him and burned him alive; the ones that firebombed a house in Duma killing most of the family inside. If you consider non lethal assaults and property destruction to be terrorism then there are more examples.

Did any Jewish terrorist homes get bulldozed?

Very conveniently, you seem to “forget “ the above was in response to the three Israeli boys kidnapped by Hamas and murdered

When you say something like that, it implies that that some how excuses it or justifies it.

It does not matter one bit what was in response to. The boy that was murdered did nothing to deserve it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

All lies. There is no Israeli occupation, rather there is security control. The Arabs in the territories are citizens of the PA and receive travel documents from the PA that are widely recognized by other countries. They have the right to vote in PA elections and are free to build and farm in areas A and B, as per the Oslo agreement. Only terrorists are shot and only the homes of terrorists are bulldozed. None of them are having their land taken away from them and Israeli courts have restored land that may have been taken unjustly in the past.

Correction. Only PALESTINIAN terrorists.

My point, of course, is that the only Palestinians who are shot are terrorists and then only when it is not possible to subdue them without putting others in danger. You, of course, are only capable of seeing this situation in racist terms.

That isn’t true. Non terrorists have been shot, though to be fair, compared to many, the IDF is exceedingly careful of civilian casualties.

How many homes of Jewish terrorists have been bulldozed? I will wait.

Oh...and enlighten me on all this supposed racism because I am not seeing it.

You post this because you are unable to see things except through racist eyes. Only terrorists have been de;oberately shot and only when they could not be subdued in other ways without endangering more people. I am unaware of any cases in which Jewish terrorists could not be subdued without lethal force. Clearly, it would never occur to you to ask about the circumstances under which terrorists have been shot.

What is racist about what what I said? Your fall back seems to be to scream racist.

What have I said that is racist?

You did not answer my question. Why is it Jewish terrorists do not get their family homes bulldozed?

You are a racist because you only notice if a person is Jewish or Palestinian without considering the circumstances in which actions take place. With regard to home demolitions, they are not a punishment but a deterrent to future acts of terrorism, and no deterrent is necessary to discourage Jewish terrorists but acts of terrorism against Jews is a core value of Palestinian culture and society, so important to them that they would rather go broke that stop payments to incite more terrorism against Jews.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, toomuchtime_, et al,

Well, I don't think that is what International Law says.

(COMMENT)

What I think it says, and what is being done, in the case obligations under international law of is this:

​

This comes under the much broader heading of “Denying Safe Haven to those who Finance, Plan, Support or Commit Terrorist Acts or Provide Safe Havens, and Preventing Terrorists from Abusing the Asylum System, in conformity with International Law”. This can be seen in more detail in the Open briefing of the Counter-Terrorism Committee.

This is the implementation of clearing property that “constitutes a severe security threat and can provide cover to suicide bombers and other terrorists hiding among civilian population.”

(OTHER CONCERNS)

This is not to be confused with the process by which private property is taken for the purpose of public use. Prior to the taking, the property is said to be “condemned property”, meaning that it has been marked for destruction or modification in order that the plot of land can be used for public use.

And we should not get this confused with the condemnation of "substandard buildings" under the provisions of the Occupation Law, which, in addition thereto, presents an immediate and imminent threat to public safety. Such threats may arise by virtue of numerous circumstances such as, but not limited to, substantial risk of collapse or danger of fire.


Most Respectfully,
R

The original premise was: only the homes of terrorists are bulldozed.

This is not true. The vast number of homes bulldozed is for Israel to steal the land.

Of course that is not true. There have been just a few instances when Palestinian owned land was unjustly taken and Israeli courts have made adjustments to these cases overwhelmingly in favor of the Palestinians.

There have been more than a few, when you you look at property confiscated through absentee land owner laws and “good faith” laws that rule in favor of Israel, not the land owner.
Israel says will legalize West Bank homes built on private Palestinian land

but I agree, the bull dozing of homes is in retaliatian to terrorism. But only Palestinian terrorists.

Seventy years ago after the Arabs tried to overthrow the new Israeli government and then fled to neighboring states there was a redistribution of their property, and there was no rational alternative for the new state of Israel. Since then, Arab and Jewish Israelis have been treated equally under the law.

Under Israeli law, Israeli courts have found that no settlements can be built or sustained on land owned by Palestinians, and there have been several cases in which the courts have ordered the government to demolish settlements the court has found to be on Palestinian land. If the Palestinians had brought their claims to Israeli courts, and the court found they owned it, the government would not be able to legalize the settlements unless it could prove it was necessary for security purposes. Clearly, the Palestinians who claim the land belongs to them have chosen not to pursue their claims through legal processes.

To date, Israel's communities in Judea and Samaria take up only about 1% of the land, and the total amount of land that has been approved for development is only 8%, so why all this hysteria about Israeli settlements?

Not entirely true. There was a war. Palestinians fled either out of conflict or were driven out by Jewish militias. After that, most were not permitted back and absentee landowner laws were instituted to make it easier to confiscate their land. In comparison, the laws made it quite easy for Jews to reclaim their land, but much more difficult for Palestinians to. As a result, Israel was able to take a great deal of land. These laws are still in effect.

Today, if settlements are built on privately owned land, one of several things can happen. The courts can order it be returned to the rightful owners or they can “compensate” the rightful owner (which is meaningless if it is your property being wrongfully taken). “National security” is a term used to cover a multitude of landgrab sins that don’t necessarily have anything to do with security (not unique to Israel) that simply transfers land to settlements.

Palestinian land seized by Israeli army, given to settlers:NGO

lol To your racist eyes, all Jews are thieves and liars and all Palestinians are innocent victims. The Arabs who left Israel during the War of Independence had to be considered a hostile population, nonetheless, in response to UN resolution 194, which specified that only those refugees who were prepared to live in peace with other Israelis had a right to return, Israel offered to vet claims from Arabs who would recognize the state of Israel and live in peace in it, but no applications were received, obviously because any Arab who did would be called a collaborator and probably executed. The Arab land wasn't stolen, the Arabs lost the right to the land when they went to war against the Israeli government and against the Jews.

Your ignorance and bigotry are always impressive. Under Oslo, Israel is the civil authority in area C just as the PA is the civil authority in areas A and B. Just as the PA can define property rights in areas A and B so Israel can define property rights in area C. Under the PA rules, Jews cant own property in areas A or B, but under Israeli law, all property rights that can be substantiated are respected. All governments seize private for public use when they think it is necessary, it's called eminent domain, but when Israel exercises the same right all governments use, you call the Jews liars and thieves and despite the fact Israel is surrounded by hostile populations you dismiss any Israel's need for security as just more lies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

So, Palestinians building on their own land is an illegal settlement.

Well...as far as I can tell, Arab Israelis have not been granted permits to create new settlements in the Area C, they are frequently denied building and expansion permits, and their government invests far less in their infrastructure than in that of it's Jewish citizens, even to the point of providing infrastructure to illegal (under Israeli law) settlements. So it is certainly inequitable. The other thing that increases the divide is Israel's Jewish citizens get a lot of funding from outside donors that is expressly for Jewish settlement. I dont think it's Arab citizens do to same extent. So there is both a political and financial preference for expanding Jewish housing.

More racist nonsense from you. First, under Israeli law, no Arab Israeli can be excluded from any housing in Israel or area C because of being an Arab, so the settlements you refer to as Jewish are open to Arab Israelis as well.

The same rules concerning building apply to all Israelis. No building is allowed unless it fits into an approved master plan for the area either in Israeli or C. It takes at least two years from the time an application is submitted before construction can begin. There are only a few cases in which Palestinians have followed all the rules and in those cases building permits have been issued.

What is racist about it simple facts?

Here is a simple question: how many new legal Arab Israeli settlements have been started in Area C?

How many illegal Jewish settlements get government supported infrastructure? Even when illegally built on Palestinian owned lan (per the Israeli courts).
Israeli government-funded council spent millions on illegal settlements


How about Arab settlements?


Now tell me how what I said is racist.

Again, you are clearly only capable of seeing things through racist eyes. First, there is no such thing as a Jewish or Arab settlement under Israeli law since these communities must be open to all Israelis regardless of race or ethnicity.

Second, how stupid or biased do you have to be to talk about how many settlements proposed by Arabs have been approved without first talking about how settlements have been proposed by Arab Israelis? Clearly, you are incapable of thinking about anything but race.

How many Area C settlements include Arabs?

How many settlements are Jewish only?

How many are Arab only?

How many Israeli communities include Arabs? I don't know but under the law, they are all available to Arab Israelis who want to live there.

How many Israeli communities are Jewish only? Zero.

It would be illegal for any of these communities to be either Arab only or Jewish only no matter how much your racist heart wants them to be, but all of areas A and B is Arab only.