Palestine Today

[toomuchtime_]

What Arab only settlements?

They are ALL Arab-only settlements. In every area that is even nominally controlled by Arabs -- they are ALL Arab only. The Temple freaking Mount is Arab-only, or close enough, and certainly would be if Arabs actually controlled it.

In what world are you pretending that they are not Arab-only?

Area C. The settlement program. The one requiring permits. The sponsored and encouraged by the government. Why no Arab settlements? Why are ONLY Jews allowed to create settlements?

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

lol It means you. In every situation all you see is race. A racist is someone who sees everything in terms of race. Clearly, that is you.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

A racist is someone who sees things in terms of race to the exclusion of other considerations such as the circumstances in which an action takes place, and that is what Coyote does in virtually every post. racism is not just about hate; it is about being unable to process information about a situation without reference to race.

 

[Coyote]

What Arab only settlements?

They are ALL Arab-only settlements. In every area that is even nominally controlled by Arabs -- they are ALL Arab only. The Temple freaking Mount is Arab-only, or close enough, and certainly would be if Arabs actually controlled it.

In what world are you pretending that they are not Arab-only?

Area C. The settlement program. The one requiring permits. The sponsored and encouraged by the government. Why no Arab settlements? Why are ONLY Jews allowed to create settlements?

If memory serves there are 241 Arab-only settlements in Area C. In addition, there are several Arab-only settlements in Area C which result from a spilling over from Areas A and B.

"Settlements" as in new communities from Arab Israelis moving into Area C to build? Or, existing villages that predated Israel's seizure of the area? What are some of the names of these Arab only "settlements"?

Settlements are pretty clearly defined and they are not defined as pre-existing habitations. For example, Jews moving back into towns they had inhabited prior to the war would not be "settlements". I see a constant stretching of the definition "settlements" in order to justify what is essentially a political program to deliberately alter regional demographics.

Area_C_(West_Bank)
Area C, excluding East Jerusalem, is home to 385,900 Israeli settlers[3] and approximately 300,000 Palestinians.[4] According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, Israeli planning and zoning regimes in Area C all but prohibit Palestinian construction in almost 70 percent this zone, and render the obtaining of permits in the remaining 30 percent nearly impossible.[26]

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control. T

2019
PM said to float plan for Palestinian building permits in West Bank’s Area C
Palestinians are rarely granted building permits in Area C and recent years have seen the total number of approvals remain in the single digits, compared to the thousands green-lighted for Israeli settlers.

Building permits for ALL Israeli citizens are granted or not granted on the basis of meeting guidelines for site ownership, zoning, planning, and safety regulations. No building permits are issued (or not issued) based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender. In fact, it is illegal to even gather that information on building permit applications and therefore NO ONE KNOWS the number of building permits issued to Arabs vs. Jews.

I''m going to dispute that claim because it defies logic when 94% of the permits of one ethnicity are rejected - 94%. It might be illegal - technically - but that does not mean it isn't done. In one of my earlier posts here I linked to one article where the local municipal government subsidized and supported illegal settlement building in their municipality for example. And these sorts of activities are supported by a significant faction of Israel's political leadership. I strongly suspect that they DO know who they are issuing the permits to - you don't need that data specified, just look at the names, the organization, even the place they are from. So yes, it might be illegal but what is it worth if it is not enforced?

So, when you ask, "Why are ONLY Jews allowed to create settlements", you are either demonstrating your lack of knowledge about this subject, or, as has been suggested, are throwing out soundbytes in order to demonize Jews and Israel.

You yourself said you one of your criticisms of Israel is that it should issue more permits to Arabs. Have you changed your mind about that and now label it "demonizing Jews and Israel"?

As far as "demonstrating a lack of knowledge" - I provide sources to back my claims. Is that demonizing?

If you are interested in having a discussion, factually incorrect and demonizing statements such as the one above should be dropped in favor of a solid understanding of the entirety of the reality on the ground.

There is nothing factually incorrect - I back up my statements.

When discussing communities in Area C, we need to consider:

• Citizens of Palestine living in numerous small villages scattered throughout Area C.
• Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens moving into Area C.
• Arab and Jewish Israeli citizen squatters and outposts.
• Expanding existing Arab and Jewish settlements.
• Building in Jerusalem.
• Security needs.

I agree and disagree.

I agree with what you are saying in your bullet points BUT - I disagree with your attempt to stretch the definition of settlements to the point of ridiculous. There are old and established communities - both Jewish and Arab. Those are not settlements.

New communities.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

 

[Coyote]

I am going to dispute that. It is very much a political program designed to alter the regional demographics.

Yes, the Jewish people returning to their homeland is very much a drive by the Jewish people, to, you know, resettle their homeland and establish the State of Israel. It very much intended to change the demographics of the region.

It is not motivated by a political drive for territory but as the drive of a people to re-constitute their homeland. Contrast that with the Morocco government asserting her claim to Western Sahara by deliberately transferring hundreds of thousands of Moroccans into Western Sahara prior to a referendum vote.

What I'm arguing here is the difference in motivation and who is driving it.

You can have more than one motivation. The motivation of those creating settlements...and the motivation of the political entities encouraging and providing financial and protective support for them. I would argue that the latter is absolutely designed as a political drive for territory through altering the demographics and the grossly unequal approval of permits for the other group of native people who reside there and make up a portion of Israel's citizenry.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If one is hereditarily Jewish, then one is Arab by race.
The word "Semitic" actually means one who speaks a native Arab language.
Israel is about the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world, where 6 million immigrant Jews rule over the 12 million Arab Muslim natives.
Even the Christians consider Israeli Zionists to be incredibly bigoted and discriminatory.

 

[Coyote]

If it were not political, why are Arabs not granted permits to settle in Area C?

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If one is hereditarily Jewish, then one is Arab by race.
The word "Semitic" actually means one who speaks a native Arab language.
Israel is about the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world, where 6 million immigrant Jews rule over the 12 million Arab Muslim natives.
Even the Christians consider Israeli Zionists to be incredibly bigoted and discriminatory.

Have you ever heard of Saudi Arabia?

The rest is just standard antisemitic gobbledygook.

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If one is hereditarily Jewish, then one is Arab by race.
The word "Semitic" actually means one who speaks a native Arab language.
Israel is about the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world, where 6 million immigrant Jews rule over the 12 million Arab Muslim natives.
Even the Christians consider Israeli Zionists to be incredibly bigoted and discriminatory.

Have you ever heard of Saudi Arabia?

The rest is just standard antisemitic gobbledygook.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
Saudi Arabia is Arab and Moslem, but the fact the Hebrew tribes went to Medina in Saudi Arabia after the Romans kicked them out of Palestine, has little to do with modern Jews or Palestine?

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

The same documents also recognized a Jewish homeland.

Israel exists, and has for coming on 75 years as a nation. That is older than a number of other nations today. Get over it.

These documents do NOT recognize a Jewish home land as having sovereignty.
They recognize a Jewish home land within an free Arab, Muslim, Palestine.
If you do not believe me, then read the 1922 Churchill Whitepaper that explains it in great detail.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organization for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew Press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious, and social organizations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact "national" characteristics. When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

This, then, is the interpretation which His Majesty's Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews.

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions. The number of immigrants since the British occupation has been about 25,000.
...}

When it comes to those documents and period of history, I usually defer to people like RoccoR who have a more extensive knowledge than I.

But regardless...it's really irrelevant today. It does not matter at all except to those who are trying to make arguments justifying the rights to and control of one side or the other to larger or smaller areas of territory.

It's not going to alter the fact of the existence of a sovereign nation that is established has itself as a nation for almost 75 years now.

 

[Coyote]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ "toomuchtime_,

I don't believe that "Coyote" is racist.

Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over again? All Israelis have the same rights. Were you not so profoundly racist, you would be asking why Arab Israelis choose not to move to Judea and Samaria.

You keep saying racist like you think you know what it means.

(COMMENT)

Having an honest opinion to the contrary is NOT the same as being "racist."

The Israelis are many more times diverse (in terms of race) than any of the adjacent Arab League States. I don't beleive "Coyote" forms or holds her opinion on the basis of some racist foundation. I don't see any evidence to support that.


Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you R, and I agree (and have many times said) that Israel is very diverse and a pluralistic nation of people from all over the world which gives it a unique perspective in that part of the world.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.
If one is hereditarily Jewish, then one is Arab by race.
The word "Semitic" actually means one who speaks a native Arab language.
Israel is about the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world, where 6 million immigrant Jews rule over the 12 million Arab Muslim natives.
Even the Christians consider Israeli Zionists to be incredibly bigoted and discriminatory.

Have you ever heard of Saudi Arabia?

The rest is just standard antisemitic gobbledygook.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
Saudi Arabia is Arab and Moslem, but the fact the Hebrew tribes went to Medina in Saudi Arabia after the Romans kicked them out of Palestine, has little to do with modern Jews or Palestine?

...the single most restrictive and unpluralistic nation in the world,

 

[toomuchtime_]

What Arab only settlements?

They are ALL Arab-only settlements. In every area that is even nominally controlled by Arabs -- they are ALL Arab only. The Temple freaking Mount is Arab-only, or close enough, and certainly would be if Arabs actually controlled it.

In what world are you pretending that they are not Arab-only?

Area C. The settlement program. The one requiring permits. The sponsored and encouraged by the government. Why no Arab settlements? Why are ONLY Jews allowed to create settlements?

If memory serves there are 241 Arab-only settlements in Area C. In addition, there are several Arab-only settlements in Area C which result from a spilling over from Areas A and B.

"Settlements" as in new communities from Arab Israelis moving into Area C to build? Or, existing villages that predated Israel's seizure of the area? What are some of the names of these Arab only "settlements"?

Settlements are pretty clearly defined and they are not defined as pre-existing habitations. For example, Jews moving back into towns they had inhabited prior to the war would not be "settlements". I see a constant stretching of the definition "settlements" in order to justify what is essentially a political program to deliberately alter regional demographics.

Area_C_(West_Bank)
Area C, excluding East Jerusalem, is home to 385,900 Israeli settlers[3] and approximately 300,000 Palestinians.[4] According to the Norwegian Refugee Council, Israeli planning and zoning regimes in Area C all but prohibit Palestinian construction in almost 70 percent this zone, and render the obtaining of permits in the remaining 30 percent nearly impossible.[26]

2007
Palestine Today
A UN agency said that Israel has denied 94 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in West Bank areas under its full control. T

2019
PM said to float plan for Palestinian building permits in West Bank’s Area C
Palestinians are rarely granted building permits in Area C and recent years have seen the total number of approvals remain in the single digits, compared to the thousands green-lighted for Israeli settlers.

Building permits for ALL Israeli citizens are granted or not granted on the basis of meeting guidelines for site ownership, zoning, planning, and safety regulations. No building permits are issued (or not issued) based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender. In fact, it is illegal to even gather that information on building permit applications and therefore NO ONE KNOWS the number of building permits issued to Arabs vs. Jews.

I''m going to dispute that claim because it defies logic when 94% of the permits of one ethnicity are rejected - 94%. It might be illegal - technically - but that does not mean it isn't done. In one of my earlier posts here I linked to one article where the local municipal government subsidized and supported illegal settlement building in their municipality for example. And these sorts of activities are supported by a significant faction of Israel's political leadership. I strongly suspect that they DO know who they are issuing the permits to - you don't need that data specified, just look at the names, the organization, even the place they are from. So yes, it might be illegal but what is it worth if it is not enforced?

So, when you ask, "Why are ONLY Jews allowed to create settlements", you are either demonstrating your lack of knowledge about this subject, or, as has been suggested, are throwing out soundbytes in order to demonize Jews and Israel.

You yourself said you one of your criticisms of Israel is that it should issue more permits to Arabs. Have you changed your mind about that and now label it "demonizing Jews and Israel"?

As far as "demonstrating a lack of knowledge" - I provide sources to back my claims. Is that demonizing?

If you are interested in having a discussion, factually incorrect and demonizing statements such as the one above should be dropped in favor of a solid understanding of the entirety of the reality on the ground.

There is nothing factually incorrect - I back up my statements.

When discussing communities in Area C, we need to consider:

• Citizens of Palestine living in numerous small villages scattered throughout Area C.
• Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens moving into Area C.
• Arab and Jewish Israeli citizen squatters and outposts.
• Expanding existing Arab and Jewish settlements.
• Building in Jerusalem.
• Security needs.

I agree and disagree.

I agree with what you are saying in your bullet points BUT - I disagree with your attempt to stretch the definition of settlements to the point of ridiculous. There are old and established communities - both Jewish and Arab. Those are not settlements.

New communities.

A settlement is simply an Israeli community in area C over which Israel has not yet asserted sovereignty. By treaty, Israel has civil authority over area C and the PA has civil authority over areas A and B. Only rarely does Israel, the legitimate civil authority over area C, allow Palestinians to build in area C and the PA never allows Israel to build in areas A or B. When the PA invites Israel to begin building settlements in area A and B, perhaps you will have some rational basis for griping about the lack of Palestinian settlements in area C. However, since there is no political entity among the Palestinians that ca credibly offer peace to Israel, there is no likelihood that these divisions will change in the foreseeable future; area C will remain under Israeli civil authority and A and B will remain under Palestinian civil authority unless, of course, the PA launches another intifada.

 

[Shusha]

If it were not political, why are Arabs not granted permits to settle in Area C?

You would have to first prove your claim that Arabs are not granted permits to settle in Area C.

I've done so in another post - majority - VAST majority - are denied.

I am not finding that link.

 

[toomuchtime_]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ toomuchtime_, P F Tinmore, et al,

I've seen this before.

All true and yet, the grandchildren of someone who left Israel in 1948 are regarded as a refugees in documents and opinions that have nothing to do with receiving services.

(COMMENT)

Yes, this is a conjuring of the theory that IF the arrangement of words and phrases to create the impression of validity is repeated often enough, THEN it will miraculously become true.

The term "refugee," in the case of the Arab Palestinians, is an approximation towards the truth, but not the truth. In mathematics we call this "bad notation" or improper "syntax." But when you know better, and still do it, you are encouraging disinformation. In the realm of honesty, it should be avoided in general.

Similarly, as occupation is defined in the Geneva Conventions, there is no Israeli occupation and there is no basis in law, fact or logic for calling any part of Judea or Samaria Palestinian territory yet it is hard to find any reference to them that does not call them occupied Palestinian territories.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is close. Actually, by international law, the status of "occupation" is defined in Article 42, of the 1907 Hague Regulation.

View attachment 294056​

Yes, there is some room to argue about this...

◈ Since the Arab Palestinians never established sovereignty over any territory except Area "A" was any of the West Bank and Gaza Strip "Occupied Territory in the aftermath of the Six-Day War?

◈ Since the Jordanian Government cut all ties with the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1988, while it was under Israeli control, was that territory ever occupied by a hostile Army?

◈ Since Israel cannot effectively control the Gaza Strip, and cannot maintain authority, it never had, and cannot exercise authority (effective control), is it legally occupied territory?​

Talking about refugees who are not refugees, an occupation that is not an occupation and Palestinian territories that are not in any sense Palestinian territory encourages unrealistic expectations among the so called Palestinians, really just stateless Arabs living in the unincorporated remnants of the former Mandate for Palestine, and prolongs the conflict the people who use these misleading terms claim to be concerned about.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is based on how you interpret the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954).

For the purpose of this Convention, the try in which he finds himself, which require term "stateless person" means a person who is in particular that he conform to its laws and not considered as a national by any State under regulations as well as to measures taken for the operation of its law.
​

Now there are a couple of notable exceptions to the convention and the two that stand out the most relative to Arab Palestinians are:

◈ The definition doesn't apply to those persons under UNHCR support. But does apply to those receiving UNRWA Services.

◈ It does not apply to those that have committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, which would leave out favorable consideration (but not limited) to:

✦ Arab Palestinians who were members of organizations that were financing of terrorists, whether direct or indirect, through groups claiming to have charitable, social or cultural goals or which also engage in illicit activities such as drug trafficking or gun running;

✦ Those involved or proving support to the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Those involved in the unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.

✦ Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third party.

✦ The unlawful use of an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place.​

That would leave out a large segment of Arab Palestinians, especially those thousand and thousands of demonstrators that were involved in the fire kits and balloons from the Gaza Strip.

DID I miss anything?


Most Respectfully,
R

As with the Geneva Conventions, it is only an occupation if the territory of a hostile state is taken, but since no one but Pakistan and the UK considered Judea and Samaria to be Jordanian territory, Israel's capture of the land cannot be considered an occupation. Furthermore, since there is no rational basis in fact or logic for calling the territory Palestinian territory, the term, occupied Palestinian territory, has no substantial meaning other than that the person who states it wants it to be Palestinians territory, in other words, it is purely a propaganda term. People who use these terms are the enemies of peace and progress in the ME.

Totally wrong.
Palestine was established by the Allies according to their promise during WWI.
The Treaty of Sevres, the Treaty of San Remo, etc., established Palestine as a defined and legal political entity.

Israel on the other hand, is just a whim of the UN, as a gesture to a bunch of European refugee immigrants.
There is no legal, historical, or religious basis for Israel.

I see. So you are saying Europeans should decide how the people in the region should live except when it might benefit Jews.