Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

The treaty specified and fully recognized the international border between Israel and Jordan

Borders of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, signed on March 26, 1979 created an officially recognized international border along the 1906 line, with Egypt renouncing all claims to the Gaza Strip

Next question please

Next question please

From your link:

The border with Egypt is the international border demarcated in 1906 between Britain and the Ottoman Empire. The borders with Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are based on those drawn up by the United Kingdom and France in anticipation of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War and the carve up of the Ottoman Empire between them. They are referred to as the 1923 borders, being those of Mandate Palestine, which were settled in 1923.

The 1949 UN armistice agreements say that those borders are Palestinian international Borders.

When did Israel acquire those borders from Palestine?

(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

From your link:



The 1949 UN armistice agreements say that those borders are Palestinian international Borders.

When did Israel acquire those borders from Palestine?

(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

ArrrGGGGGGGGGGgghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[toastman]

It was, but the armistice agreements (that Israel signed) gave the status of Palestine and Israel as of that time.

After that time Israel had to acquire land from Palestine and agree to new borders.

When did that Happen? Post the documents.

Where does it say that Israel had to aquire land from a Palestine, which doesnt exist btw, in order to have borders? Post documents that say that

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

And nowhere does it say that this nullifies the treaties that gave Israel borders with Egypt and with Jordan. Nice try though.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

From your link:



The 1949 UN armistice agreements say that those borders are Palestinian international Borders.

When did Israel acquire those borders from Palestine?

(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

you didn't answer his questions.
I think his third questions is important. Who gave 'Palestine' sovereignty ???

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.


(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

ArrrGGGGGGGGGGgghhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Isn't it funny that Tinmore makes up his own rules concerning these issues !

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where does it say that Israel had to aquire land from a Palestine, which doesnt exist btw, in order to have borders? Post documents that say that

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

And nowhere does it say that this nullifies the treaties that gave Israel borders with Egypt and with Jordan. Nice try though.

It recognizes the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have the right to their land. No other party can change that even in a treaty that does not include the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

And nowhere does it say that this nullifies the treaties that gave Israel borders with Egypt and with Jordan. Nice try though.

It recognizes the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have the right to their land. No other party can change that even in a treaty that does not include the Palestinians.

I'll try again: Where does it say that what you posted nullifies the treaties that gave borders to ISrael with Egypt and with Jordan ???

Also, when did the Palestinians have any control over the land they were living on?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three (3) things wrong with your citation and the concept behind the citation as it applies to Israel.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.

From your link:



The 1949 UN armistice agreements say that those borders are Palestinian international Borders.

When did Israel acquire those borders from Palestine?

(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

(COUNTERPOINTS)

• A 1970 interpretation of the meaning of the concept to the right of self-determination cannot be applied retroactively to events that occurred in 1949 or 1967.

• In 1949, the same body (the UN) recognized the independent state of Israel, and did not recognized an independent state of Palestine. So even if we applied (retroactively) the concept you cite, it would appear that the Israeli claim to independence was recognized prior to any Palestinian claim. In 1949, and indeed in 1967, there was no recognized sovereignty called Palestine. Even today, The Palestinian Authority is an interim self-government body established in 1994 to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo Accords) and it was only this year that UN General Assembly recognised the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state. Thus the body of law you cite, created by the General Assembly on just recognized the State of Palestine as a potential. So again, the General Assembly, who created the Humanitarian Law you cite, sees that it applies only way into the future and not into the past.

• Even if the concept were to be fully applied (retroactively) to 1949, it is obvious that it would apply to the Jewish people creating Israel equally as well as it would apply to the Palestinians. Thus, the Jewish people, following the protocols in play at that time, applied the concept and created a state.

(COMMENT)

Any international law created, endorsed, and enforced by the United National, which followed its established protocols applicable at the time of their decision, is just as influential to the Jewish position in the creation of (state of) Israel in 1948, as it is today by the move of the (state of) Palestinians to create Palestine in 2013.

Any challenge to the General Assembly Resolution [273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949] would also be a direct challenge to the protocols that lead to Transjordan being made independent from the UK through a treaty signed in 1946, and the UN General Assembly Resolution [A/RES/995(X) 14 Dec. 1955
Admission of new Members to the United Nations (Jordan)]; both created from the same mandate.

The Palestinians, and in particular Hamas, have chosen a different path; a path of violence and terrorism; through both deed and charter/covenant. Hamas and the Palestinians have not chosen a path of peace, as described in your citation of United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).

(SIDEBAR)

I find it amazing that Hamas and the general proponents for the Palestinians, are always trying to justify the path of violence and acts of terrorism.

They must realize, of course, that even if they succeeded in taking Israel by force, they would have to give it back. You cannot have territorial gains through force.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[member]

"The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate."

"An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination."

"ArrrGGGGGGGGGGgghhhhhhhhhhhhh."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This say no such thing.

It notes in this regard the contentions of Palestine and other participants that the construction of the wall is “an attempt to annex the territory contrary to international law” and “a violation of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force” and that “the de facto annexation of land interferes with the territorial sovereignty and consequently with the right of the Palestinians to self-determination”. It notes also that Israel, for its part, has argued that the wall’s sole purpose is to enable it effectively to combat terrorist attacks launched from the West Bank, and that Israel has repeatedly stated that the Barrier is a temporary measure.

The Court recalls that both the General Assembly and the Security Council have referred, with regard to Palestine, to the customary rule of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. As regards the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, the Court observes that the existence of a “Palestinian people” is no longer in issue, and has been recognized by Israel, along with that people’s “legitimate rights”. The Court considers that those rights include the right to self-determination, as the General Assembly has moreover recognized on a number of occasions.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

And nowhere does it say that this nullifies the treaties that gave Israel borders with Egypt and with Jordan. Nice try though.

It recognizes the territorial sovereignty of the Palestinians. The Palestinians have the right to their land. No other party can change that even in a treaty that does not include the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The phrasing is particular and very careful NOT TO SAY that the Palestinians are sovereign or hold some special statehood status. The phrase "interferes with" is ambiguous at best. It doesn't say how it "interferes with" these rights (assumed).

Additionally, Israel did not “violate of the legal principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory by the use of force.” In 1948, clearly the outbreak of hostilities was by the Arab. In 1949, it was the Arab that attacked. In 1967, it was Israel defending against an extensive troop mass (a dangerous and hostile provocation). In 1973, it was again, the Arabs that attacked. In each case, the Palestinians acted as a Fifth Column Movement and Insurgents.

The intent of the law is to prevent one country from taking the offensive to acquire the territory of another. It is not the intent of the law to prohibit an active defense against an aggressor that has a favorable territorial outcome; where there was no initial intent or plan to secure land.

In each case, had the Arab/Palestinian not taken hostile action, there would have been no conflict. The Arab/Palestinians, as the hostile aggressors, owes war reparations in each case to the defender (Israel).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three (3) things wrong with your citation and the concept behind the citation as it applies to Israel.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm confused again.


(QUESTIONs)

• Relative to 1949, who was Palestine?
• Where was Palestine?
• Who gave Palestine sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was a Mandate of territory, formerly of the Ottoman Empire. It had no borders and no independence. Even the territory of Palestine was at the discretion of the Allied Powers. It was a made-up place just to put a name to the ground.

The entire idea that someone had to ask Palestine for some sort of permission is absurd. The idea that Palestine was a independent country is merely folklore. In 1949, Palestine did not exist beyond that of a territorial mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

A people can be said to have realised its right to self-determination when they have either (1) established a sovereign and independent state;...

The right to self-determination - IHL

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

(COUNTERPOINTS)

• A 1970 interpretation of the meaning of the concept to the right of self-determination cannot be applied retroactively to events that occurred in 1949 or 1967.

• In 1949, the same body (the UN) recognized the independent state of Israel, and did not recognized an independent state of Palestine. So even if we applied (retroactively) the concept you cite, it would appear that the Israeli claim to independence was recognized prior to any Palestinian claim. In 1949, and indeed in 1967, there was no recognized sovereignty called Palestine. Even today, The Palestinian Authority is an interim self-government body established in 1994 to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo Accords) and it was only this year that UN General Assembly recognised the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state. Thus the body of law you cite, created by the General Assembly on just recognized the State of Palestine as a potential. So again, the General Assembly, who created the Humanitarian Law you cite, sees that it applies only way into the future and not into the past.

• Even if the concept were to be fully applied (retroactively) to 1949, it is obvious that it would apply to the Jewish people creating Israel equally as well as it would apply to the Palestinians. Thus, the Jewish people, following the protocols in play at that time, applied the concept and created a state.

(COMMENT)

Any international law created, endorsed, and enforced by the United National, which followed its established protocols applicable at the time of their decision, is just as influential to the Jewish position in the creation of (state of) Israel in 1948, as it is today by the move of the (state of) Palestinians to create Palestine in 2013.

Any challenge to the General Assembly Resolution [273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949] would also be a direct challenge to the protocols that lead to Transjordan being made independent from the UK through a treaty signed in 1946, and the UN General Assembly Resolution [A/RES/995(X) 14 Dec. 1955
Admission of new Members to the United Nations (Jordan)]; both created from the same mandate.

The Palestinians, and in particular Hamas, have chosen a different path; a path of violence and terrorism; through both deed and charter/covenant. Hamas and the Palestinians have not chosen a path of peace, as described in your citation of United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).

(SIDEBAR)

I find it amazing that Hamas and the general proponents for the Palestinians, are always trying to justify the path of violence and acts of terrorism.

They must realize, of course, that even if they succeeded in taking Israel by force, they would have to give it back. You cannot have territorial gains through force.

Most Respectfully,
R

What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamas.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are three (3) things wrong with your citation and the concept behind the citation as it applies to Israel.

An independent state is a result of self determination not a prerequisite. Territorial sovereignty is a part of the right to self determination.

(COUNTERPOINTS)

• A 1970 interpretation of the meaning of the concept to the right of self-determination cannot be applied retroactively to events that occurred in 1949 or 1967.

• In 1949, the same body (the UN) recognized the independent state of Israel, and did not recognized an independent state of Palestine. So even if we applied (retroactively) the concept you cite, it would appear that the Israeli claim to independence was recognized prior to any Palestinian claim. In 1949, and indeed in 1967, there was no recognized sovereignty called Palestine. Even today, The Palestinian Authority is an interim self-government body established in 1994 to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo Accords) and it was only this year that UN General Assembly recognised the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state. Thus the body of law you cite, created by the General Assembly on just recognized the State of Palestine as a potential. So again, the General Assembly, who created the Humanitarian Law you cite, sees that it applies only way into the future and not into the past.

• Even if the concept were to be fully applied (retroactively) to 1949, it is obvious that it would apply to the Jewish people creating Israel equally as well as it would apply to the Palestinians. Thus, the Jewish people, following the protocols in play at that time, applied the concept and created a state.

(COMMENT)

Any international law created, endorsed, and enforced by the United National, which followed its established protocols applicable at the time of their decision, is just as influential to the Jewish position in the creation of (state of) Israel in 1948, as it is today by the move of the (state of) Palestinians to create Palestine in 2013.

Any challenge to the General Assembly Resolution [273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations, 11 May 1949] would also be a direct challenge to the protocols that lead to Transjordan being made independent from the UK through a treaty signed in 1946, and the UN General Assembly Resolution [A/RES/995(X) 14 Dec. 1955
Admission of new Members to the United Nations (Jordan)]; both created from the same mandate.

The Palestinians, and in particular Hamas, have chosen a different path; a path of violence and terrorism; through both deed and charter/covenant. Hamas and the Palestinians have not chosen a path of peace, as described in your citation of United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV).

(SIDEBAR)

I find it amazing that Hamas and the general proponents for the Palestinians, are always trying to justify the path of violence and acts of terrorism.

They must realize, of course, that even if they succeeded in taking Israel by force, they would have to give it back. You cannot have territorial gains through force.

Most Respectfully,
R

What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamas.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period.

what thd fuck does that have to do with anything? Are you capable of saying anything intellectual ever?

 

[member]

"What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamass.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period."

Hamass.......


their legacy: blowing the flesh off "their" bodies.....






"palestinians (hamasss)....the world can learn a lot from them, they set good examples"


...as per ptfinkmore

 

[RoccoR]

OFF TOPIC

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Part and parcel of the "right of self-determination" is the flip-side to that coin, which is to "take responsibility for the consequences to your actions."

The People of Gaza, and Palestinians in general, have chosen a path for war with Israel. The people have adopted a Charter that, for all intent and purposes, calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Islamic Caliph over the land. The people selected this hostile government, support this hostile government, and promote this hostile government that has used both asymmetric and conventional warfare strategies against the Israels. And in doing so, effectively establish a quasi-state of war.

In doing so, both the government and the people that put them in power and maintain their legitimacy, and the will to further hostile activities, must also accept the consequences of their actions. They can neither hide behind their deaths, or law. For over six decades, the Palestinian People have promoted hostilities at their own discretion with Israel. The responsibility for their casualties is theirs; and their alone. The casualties stop if the discretionary warlike activities stop. It is their choice; and has always been their choice. To continue fruitless efforts at hostilities, and then to philosophically hide behind the casualties (especially the bodies of children) so that they can freely conduct further hostilities without reprisals is futile.

If the Palestinians do not want to accept the responsibilities of war, and the subsequent consequences, then they should cease all further action that warrant reprisals.

What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamas.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period.

(COMMENT)

In war, which the Palestinians created, there is a cost; as I've discussed. But there is also these hidden agendas. One of the agendas to to create a false atmosphere of sympathy. HAMAS allows rockets to be fired from built-up residencial areas because they know that this is where the Israelis will return fire. It is an intentional attempt to create casualties. If Hamas did not want casualties, they would not select launch cites that are surrounded by civilian noncombatants.

Let you in on a little secret. The Israeli C-RAM RADAR knows the Point of Origin (POO) for every rocket launched; before it hits the ground. And Hamas knows this all to well. Hamas knows that is where they are going to start their search. That's way the rocket teams run like hell after they fire. They don't care what civilians are left behind to be killed. They do it intentionally to make a media event for sympathy.

1954. Although the Gaza authorities deny any control over armed groups and
responsibility for their acts, in the Mission’s view, if they failed to take the necessary
measures to prevent the Palestinian armed groups from endangering the civilian
population, the Gaza authorities would bear responsibility for the damage arising to the civilians living in Gaza.

1955. The Mission finds that security services under the control of the Gaza authorities carried out extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, detentions and ill-treatment of people, in particular political opponents, which constitute serious violations of the human rights to life, to liberty and security of the person, to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to be protected against arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair and impartial legal proceeding; and to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference.

SOURCE: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE2.pdf

Everyone except that Palestinians civilians know this. Otherwise, they wouldn't stick-around after a rocket launch.

If there is anyone that should be held accountable, it is the Palestinian people. They are the ones that are funding and supporting the cause, and create the conditions that result in civilian casualties (including the children).

You can whine all you want about the poor little children killed. Surely, it is a tragedy. But the real culprits are your own people. It is your own people that want the war. They go out of their way to find justification for it. Every day I hear them say, it is our right to conduct the war against the evil Israelis. Well, if you believe that, be prepared and responsible for the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

OFF TOPIC

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Part and parcel of the "right of self-determination" is the flip-side to that coin, which is to "take responsibility for the consequences to your actions."

The People of Gaza, and Palestinians in general, have chosen a path for war with Israel. The people have adopted a Charter that, for all intent and purposes, calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Islamic Caliph over the land. The people selected this hostile government, support this hostile government, and promote this hostile government that has used both asymmetric and conventional warfare strategies against the Israels. And in doing so, effectively establish a quasi-state of war.

In doing so, both the government and the people that put them in power and maintain their legitimacy, and the will to further hostile activities, must also accept the consequences of their actions. They can neither hide behind their deaths, or law. For over six decades, the Palestinian People have promoted hostilities at their own discretion with Israel. The responsibility for their casualties is theirs; and their alone. The casualties stop if the discretionary warlike activities stop. It is their choice; and has always been their choice. To continue fruitless efforts at hostilities, and then to philosophically hide behind the casualties (especially the bodies of children) so that they can freely conduct further hostilities without reprisals is futile.

If the Palestinians do not want to accept the responsibilities of war, and the subsequent consequences, then they should cease all further action that warrant reprisals.

What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamas.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period.

(COMMENT)

In war, which the Palestinians created, there is a cost; as I've discussed. But there is also these hidden agendas. One of the agendas to to create a false atmosphere of sympathy. HAMAS allows rockets to be fired from built-up residencial areas because they know that this is where the Israelis will return fire. It is an intentional attempt to create casualties. If Hamas did not want casualties, they would not select launch cites that are surrounded by civilian noncombatants.

Let you in on a little secret. The Israeli C-RAM RADAR knows the Point of Origin (POO) for every rocket launched; before it hits the ground. And Hamas knows this all to well. Hamas knows that is where they are going to start their search. That's way the rocket teams run like hell after they fire. They don't care what civilians are left behind to be killed. They do it intentionally to make a media event for sympathy.

1954. Although the Gaza authorities deny any control over armed groups and
responsibility for their acts, in the Mission’s view, if they failed to take the necessary
measures to prevent the Palestinian armed groups from endangering the civilian
population, the Gaza authorities would bear responsibility for the damage arising to the civilians living in Gaza.

1955. The Mission finds that security services under the control of the Gaza authorities carried out extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests, detentions and ill-treatment of people, in particular political opponents, which constitute serious violations of the human rights to life, to liberty and security of the person, to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to be protected against arbitrary arrest and detention, to a fair and impartial legal proceeding; and to freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without interference.

SOURCE: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48_ADVANCE2.pdf

Everyone except that Palestinians civilians know this. Otherwise, they wouldn't stick-around after a rocket launch.

If there is anyone that should be held accountable, it is the Palestinian people. They are the ones that are funding and supporting the cause, and create the conditions that result in civilian casualties (including the children).

You can whine all you want about the poor little children killed. Surely, it is a tragedy. But the real culprits are your own people. It is your own people that want the war. They go out of their way to find justification for it. Every day I hear them say, it is our right to conduct the war against the evil Israelis. Well, if you believe that, be prepared and responsible for the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

In war, which the Palestinians created...

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

 

[toastman]

OFF TOPIC

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Part and parcel of the "right of self-determination" is the flip-side to that coin, which is to "take responsibility for the consequences to your actions."

The People of Gaza, and Palestinians in general, have chosen a path for war with Israel. The people have adopted a Charter that, for all intent and purposes, calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Islamic Caliph over the land. The people selected this hostile government, support this hostile government, and promote this hostile government that has used both asymmetric and conventional warfare strategies against the Israels. And in doing so, effectively establish a quasi-state of war.

In doing so, both the government and the people that put them in power and maintain their legitimacy, and the will to further hostile activities, must also accept the consequences of their actions. They can neither hide behind their deaths, or law. For over six decades, the Palestinian People have promoted hostilities at their own discretion with Israel. The responsibility for their casualties is theirs; and their alone. The casualties stop if the discretionary warlike activities stop. It is their choice; and has always been their choice. To continue fruitless efforts at hostilities, and then to philosophically hide behind the casualties (especially the bodies of children) so that they can freely conduct further hostilities without reprisals is futile.

If the Palestinians do not want to accept the responsibilities of war, and the subsequent consequences, then they should cease all further action that warrant reprisals.

What I find amazing is how any person with any degree of intelligence does not see that most of the unlawful violence in this conflict is carried out by Israel, not Hamas.That explains how Israel killed close to 500 Palestinian children in the past 5 years, while Hamas killed only 1 Israeli child in that same 5 year time period.

(COMMENT)

In war, which the Palestinians created, there is a cost; as I've discussed. But there is also these hidden agendas. One of the agendas to to create a false atmosphere of sympathy. HAMAS allows rockets to be fired from built-up residencial areas because they know that this is where the Israelis will return fire. It is an intentional attempt to create casualties. If Hamas did not want casualties, they would not select launch cites that are surrounded by civilian noncombatants.

Let you in on a little secret. The Israeli C-RAM RADAR knows the Point of Origin (POO) for every rocket launched; before it hits the ground. And Hamas knows this all to well. Hamas knows that is where they are going to start their search. That's way the rocket teams run like hell after they fire. They don't care what civilians are left behind to be killed. They do it intentionally to make a media event for sympathy.



Everyone except that Palestinians civilians know this. Otherwise, they wouldn't stick-around after a rocket launch.

If there is anyone that should be held accountable, it is the Palestinian people. They are the ones that are funding and supporting the cause, and create the conditions that result in civilian casualties (including the children).

You can whine all you want about the poor little children killed. Surely, it is a tragedy. But the real culprits are your own people. It is your own people that want the war. They go out of their way to find justification for it. Every day I hear them say, it is our right to conduct the war against the evil Israelis. Well, if you believe that, be prepared and responsible for the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

In war, which the Palestinians created...

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

Nice duck. You avoided all his questions from previous posts. Answer them or admit defeat

 

[P F Tinmore]

OFF TOPIC

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Part and parcel of the "right of self-determination" is the flip-side to that coin, which is to "take responsibility for the consequences to your actions."

The People of Gaza, and Palestinians in general, have chosen a path for war with Israel. The people have adopted a Charter that, for all intent and purposes, calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Islamic Caliph over the land. The people selected this hostile government, support this hostile government, and promote this hostile government that has used both asymmetric and conventional warfare strategies against the Israels. And in doing so, effectively establish a quasi-state of war.

In doing so, both the government and the people that put them in power and maintain their legitimacy, and the will to further hostile activities, must also accept the consequences of their actions. They can neither hide behind their deaths, or law. For over six decades, the Palestinian People have promoted hostilities at their own discretion with Israel. The responsibility for their casualties is theirs; and their alone. The casualties stop if the discretionary warlike activities stop. It is their choice; and has always been their choice. To continue fruitless efforts at hostilities, and then to philosophically hide behind the casualties (especially the bodies of children) so that they can freely conduct further hostilities without reprisals is futile.

If the Palestinians do not want to accept the responsibilities of war, and the subsequent consequences, then they should cease all further action that warrant reprisals.


(COMMENT)

In war, which the Palestinians created, there is a cost; as I've discussed. But there is also these hidden agendas. One of the agendas to to create a false atmosphere of sympathy. HAMAS allows rockets to be fired from built-up residencial areas because they know that this is where the Israelis will return fire. It is an intentional attempt to create casualties. If Hamas did not want casualties, they would not select launch cites that are surrounded by civilian noncombatants.

Let you in on a little secret. The Israeli C-RAM RADAR knows the Point of Origin (POO) for every rocket launched; before it hits the ground. And Hamas knows this all to well. Hamas knows that is where they are going to start their search. That's way the rocket teams run like hell after they fire. They don't care what civilians are left behind to be killed. They do it intentionally to make a media event for sympathy.



Everyone except that Palestinians civilians know this. Otherwise, they wouldn't stick-around after a rocket launch.

If there is anyone that should be held accountable, it is the Palestinian people. They are the ones that are funding and supporting the cause, and create the conditions that result in civilian casualties (including the children).

You can whine all you want about the poor little children killed. Surely, it is a tragedy. But the real culprits are your own people. It is your own people that want the war. They go out of their way to find justification for it. Every day I hear them say, it is our right to conduct the war against the evil Israelis. Well, if you believe that, be prepared and responsible for the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

In war, which the Palestinians created...

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

Nice duck. You avoided all his questions from previous posts. Answer them or admit defeat

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

What questions did I not answer?

 

[P F Tinmore]

OFF TOPIC

SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Part and parcel of the "right of self-determination" is the flip-side to that coin, which is to "take responsibility for the consequences to your actions."

The People of Gaza, and Palestinians in general, have chosen a path for war with Israel. The people have adopted a Charter that, for all intent and purposes, calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Islamic Caliph over the land. The people selected this hostile government, support this hostile government, and promote this hostile government that has used both asymmetric and conventional warfare strategies against the Israels. And in doing so, effectively establish a quasi-state of war.

In doing so, both the government and the people that put them in power and maintain their legitimacy, and the will to further hostile activities, must also accept the consequences of their actions. They can neither hide behind their deaths, or law. For over six decades, the Palestinian People have promoted hostilities at their own discretion with Israel. The responsibility for their casualties is theirs; and their alone. The casualties stop if the discretionary warlike activities stop. It is their choice; and has always been their choice. To continue fruitless efforts at hostilities, and then to philosophically hide behind the casualties (especially the bodies of children) so that they can freely conduct further hostilities without reprisals is futile.

If the Palestinians do not want to accept the responsibilities of war, and the subsequent consequences, then they should cease all further action that warrant reprisals.


(COMMENT)

In war, which the Palestinians created, there is a cost; as I've discussed. But there is also these hidden agendas. One of the agendas to to create a false atmosphere of sympathy. HAMAS allows rockets to be fired from built-up residencial areas because they know that this is where the Israelis will return fire. It is an intentional attempt to create casualties. If Hamas did not want casualties, they would not select launch cites that are surrounded by civilian noncombatants.

Let you in on a little secret. The Israeli C-RAM RADAR knows the Point of Origin (POO) for every rocket launched; before it hits the ground. And Hamas knows this all to well. Hamas knows that is where they are going to start their search. That's way the rocket teams run like hell after they fire. They don't care what civilians are left behind to be killed. They do it intentionally to make a media event for sympathy.



Everyone except that Palestinians civilians know this. Otherwise, they wouldn't stick-around after a rocket launch.

If there is anyone that should be held accountable, it is the Palestinian people. They are the ones that are funding and supporting the cause, and create the conditions that result in civilian casualties (including the children).

You can whine all you want about the poor little children killed. Surely, it is a tragedy. But the real culprits are your own people. It is your own people that want the war. They go out of their way to find justification for it. Every day I hear them say, it is our right to conduct the war against the evil Israelis. Well, if you believe that, be prepared and responsible for the consequences.

Most Respectfully,
R

In war, which the Palestinians created...

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

Nice duck. You avoided all his questions from previous posts. Answer them or admit defeat

I was just asking for clarification on an important point.

 

[toastman]

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

Nice duck. You avoided all his questions from previous posts. Answer them or admit defeat

I'm sorry, I must have missed it.

What questions did I not answer?

I forgive you.

Who gave the Palestinians sovereignty ?

 

[toastman]

Are you saying that a hundred years ago the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists?

Nice duck. You avoided all his questions from previous posts. Answer them or admit defeat

I was just asking for clarification on an important point.

lol I was just joking about the 'admit defeat' part