The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Billo_Really]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything

Why does the pro-Israeli side always jump to that extreme? It's not all, or nothing. You either blame Israel for everything, or you don't blame them at all. That's a pretty irrational position; it's also a popular mantra.

Israel is blamed, for the things Israel is responsible for.

but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict.

I gave you a step by step plan:

• comply with international law
• end the occupation and blockade
• honor human rights
• stop hijacking ships in international waters
• stop thinking you're all that (and a bucket of chicken)
• be fair to the Palestinian's
• end administrative detention
• decide whether you want democracy, or a Jewish State (can't have both)

It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

Oh, that's right. The only reason the world is outraged that Israel wants to lock up rock throwers for 20 years, is because it doesn't like Israel? The world really thinks its okay to lock up rock throwers for 20 years and is just using this as a wedge issue because it doesn't like Israel. It has nothing to do with any Israeli actions.

How convenient!

If the world knew then, what it knows now, Israel would not be a country.

Zionists definitely don't deserve one!

 

[Billo_Really]

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

The Israeli right has no intention of seeking a lasting peace. That was obvious when they attacked Gaza after the Unity government was formed. With Hamas transitioning from a militant group, to a political one, Israel would have to seriously negotiate a peace agreement. And they have no intention of doing that.

 

[Boston1]

You can always see that moment in the conversation when the revisionists hit restart and begin their nonsense all over again as if no conversation had ever taken place.

Its the exact same tactic climate deniers use

Wow

 

[Challenger]

You can always see that moment in the conversation when the revisionists hit restart and begin their nonsense all over again as if no conversation had ever taken place.

Its the exact same tactic climate deniers use

Wow

Correct. Revisionist Zionists Revisionist Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Boston1]

Which goes to prove my point about WIKI not being your best source as just about any fool can write trash like that and they will accept it.

The revisionists are the Arab Muslim colonists who try and claim first nations status or insist on the destruction of Israel and then cry foul when Israel thwarts their hatred and bigotry again and again

 

[Shusha]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

 

[Shusha]

Israel is blamed, for the things Israel is responsible for.

The last handful of posts by the anti-Israel crowd have insisted that Israel is responsible for everything. Do you agree with that position, or do you think the Palestinian (people, leadership or government) has some responsibility?

I gave you a step by step plan:

• comply with international law
• end the occupation and blockade
• honor human rights
• stop hijacking ships in international waters
• stop thinking you're all that (and a bucket of chicken)
• be fair to the Palestinian's
• end administrative detention
• decide whether you want democracy, or a Jewish State (can't have both)

Finally! Someone answers. Now, if I ask for clarification and detail, will you provide? For example, Tinmore says that ALL of the territory of the Mandate for Palestine except Jordan is occupied. By what measure will we know that the occupation has ended? I'm looking for specifics here, actual, measurable, concrete plans which will end the conflict.

It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

Oh, that's right. The only reason the world is outraged that Israel wants to lock up rock throwers for 20 years, is because it doesn't like Israel? The world really thinks its okay to lock up rock throwers for 20 years and is just using this as a wedge issue because it doesn't like Israel. It has nothing to do with any Israeli actions.

How convenient!

If the world knew then, what it knows now, Israel would not be a country.

Zionists definitely don't deserve one!

Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing. Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.

For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years. The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm. And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years. There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm. Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?

 

[Billo_Really]

Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing. Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.

For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years. The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm. And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years. There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm. Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?

You're just saying this, because you hate the Lakers.

You're a Kobe hater. That's the only reason you said what you said.

See how stupid that argument is?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

 

[Shusha]

Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing. Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.

For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years. The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm. And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years. There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm. Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?

You're just saying this, because you hate the Lakers.

You're a Kobe hater. That's the only reason you said what you said.

See how stupid that argument is?

Kobe is a vile rapist. What is your point?

 

[Shusha]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?

 

[P F Tinmore]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?

That is what the UN recommends based on a web of international law.

 

[Shusha]

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

So you want the entire territory turned over to an Arab Muslim government?

That is what the UN recommends based on a web of international law.

Do you honestly think this is in any way a viable solution to the conflict? Do you think the conflict should continue until this happens?

 

[Boston1]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

How is all that applicable to this conflict?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

 

[Boston1]

Ultimately, if the anti-Israel side wants to blame Israel for everything but can't even formulate a step-by-step plan for Israel to rectify it, it is they who are prolonging the conflict. It really does demonstrate they aren't concerned with actually solving the problem, but only Israel-bashing.

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.​

So, what nations were they?

 

[P F Tinmore]

On the contrary, the onus is on Zionist Israel, as aggressor, coloniser, occupier and oppressor, to put forward “step by step” proposals on restitution and compensation to create the circumstances for a just and lasting peace. Anything else is just Zionist delaying tactics. Continuing conflict is solely in Zionist interests, while conflict continues they can expand their stolen territories further.

Well yes, everyone keeps telling me that the onus is on the Israel. And I'm not, in this this thread, arguing against that. I am accepting that by asking "What does Israel need to do?" Its such a simple thing. What does Israel need to do to satisfy the Palestinians? And all I'm getting is the run around.

And I have put forward a step by step plan. I even started an entire thread about it.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration

Your funny

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.

What is binding is the Geneva conventions ;--)

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

IIV Geneva convention

Quote

• Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
• The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
• Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

End Quote

Article 4

Quote

• B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
• (1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

End quote

Art 4 (6) B

Quote

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

End Quote

Article 10

Quote

• Art 10. The High Contracting Parties may at any time agree to entrust to an organization which offers all guarantees of impartiality and efficacy the duties incumbent on the Protecting Powers by virtue of the present Convention. ( edit ) When prisoners of war do not benefit or cease to benefit, no matter for what reason, by the activities of a Protecting Power or of an organization provided for in the first paragraph above, the Detaining Power shall request a neutral State, or such an organization, to undertake the functions performed under the present Convention by a Protecting Power designated by the Parties to a conflict.

End Quote

Article 19

Quote

Art 19. Prisoners of war shall be evacuated, as soon as possible after their capture, to camps situated in an area far enough from the combat zone for them to be out of danger.

End Quote

Having established the legality of segregating and arranging for the deportation of combatants, part 4 section 1 of the third Geneva convention clearly states

Quote

• Art 109. Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.
• Throughout the duration of hostilities, Parties to the conflict shall endeavour, with the cooperation of the neutral Powers concerned, to make arrangements for the accommodation in neutral countries of the sick and wounded prisoners of war referred to in the second paragraph of the following Article. They may, in addition, conclude agreements with a view to the direct repatriation or internment in a neutral country of able-bodied prisoners of war who have undergone a long period of captivity.

End quote.

So while I hear a lot of bluff and bluster concerning Israel being in defiance of international law, I've yet to have so much as one single international law presented actually stand up to scrutiny.

While at the same time it can easily be shown that not only did the UN fail to segregate combatants from non combatants in this conflict but that Israel would be fully within its legal rights to expel to a neutral third party all parties involved in or suspected of involvement in hostilities against the state.

Case closed

Kick the bums out.

UN 1514 (XV) is another in long series of general assembly votes that are NON BINDING. Suggestions or intended to lend moral support.​

It does reference several international laws that are binding.

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjx-YvM37HKAhVP5mMKHcaGBEcQFggcMAA&url=http://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHVHK-TRv1gB9Jns-L_EF78bfH-ww&sig2=Pu82JjYbhtHe68LzbJtT9w&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

Oh and I'm sorry but if you can't read and understand the Geneva conventions and how they apply to conditions of war then I'm not sure how I'm supposed to help you.

Five nations of the Arab league declared war on Israel and its been going on ever since.

See
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjzs--Z4bHKAhUEMGMKHaS9CjEQFggcMAA&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War&usg=AFQjCNHKkxKvnSNkwDjiO5EKjcw-ckRZvQ&sig2=gw27143HNii6vVwIJ08E8A&bvm=bv.112064104,d.cGc

I just read the entire actual document and it doesn't reference a single point of international law.​

Oh really? It is illegal to acquire territory by war.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.​

You don't see a connection there?

 

[Billo_Really]

Thank you for proving my point about Israel bashing. Rather than look at solving the problem, you took the opportunity to bash Israel on an entirely off-topic point by introducing lies and exaggerations and then making broad, disparaging remarks, including a general one about "Zionists" which is obviously a form of anti-semitism.

Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, so how can it possibly be anti-Semitic?

As for Israel bashing, why would I lie? Why would I go to all the trouble of exaggerating something about a country I could care less about?

For the record, most sentences for rock-throwing range from a few months to two years. The only way a twenty year sentence can be put in place is if it is proven in court that the rock throwing intended serious bodily harm. And, personally, I think that intending serious bodily harm to an innocent person deserves a serious sentence, yes, even including up to 20 years.

Your on their land, humiliating their parents, shooting them with rubber bullets, pounding them in the face, not stopping settler violence, but get aggravated when they throw a rock?

There really isn't any difference between a rock and a knife...

Yes there is. The IDF doesn't place rocks next to the body of a Palestinian they just shot in cold blood.

and a car and a gun when it comes to intent to harm. Or are you telling me that attacking someone with a knife with intent to kill them should not receive a harsh sentence up to 20 years?

I'm saying what you do to them, is far worse than what they do to you.

Kobe is a vile rapist. What is your point?

What do you.......live in Denver?