Israel violated Lebanons territory over 3000 times in 2012

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What the idiot professor says is true. In a standalone mode, Resolution 181 is dubious.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and has no meaning. It was merely a proposal that never went anywhere.

Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications — that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation.

Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law and editor of one of the 'bibles' of international law, Oppenheim's International Law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs.

Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the Partition Plans that preceded it.

Think-Israel

(COMMENT)

However, there is a diplomatic slight of hand, that like the Pheonix, raises it from the dead.

As you can see, the Resolution that Admits Israel to the UN as a member, used Resolution 181 in its process. Thus, while 181 may be questionable on is own, clearly 11 May 1949, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PART II, A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949, puts it in play to establish the Jewish State.

This Arab Argument that Res 181 is totally without standing is not correct. It is subterfuge by Arab and Palestinian war radicals to confuse the Issue.

Remember, to understand any one aspect of the issue, you have to read the entire book. The Arab's War Coalition did not accept 181. But that doen't mean that the Israelis and the UN could not incorporate it into another standing document as an attachment and make the applicable portions of it viable. Clearly this was done in both the Israeli application for admission and the UN General Assembly approval, so written into the body.

When that idiot professor talks about 181, he is talking about the 181 as it creates the two state solution (which the Arab and Palestinians rejected and opted for war - warlike as they are - Rejecting the creation of the Palestine state)(read the quote I inserted). It did not prevent the International Community and Israeli from accepting their half.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What the idiot professor says is true. In a standalone mode, Resolution 181 is dubious.

Resolution 181 was never implemented and has no meaning. It was merely a proposal that never went anywhere.

Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications — that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation.

Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law and editor of one of the 'bibles' of international law, Oppenheim's International Law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs.

Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the Partition Plans that preceded it.

Think-Israel

(COMMENT)

However, there is a diplomatic slight of hand, that like the Pheonix, raises it from the dead.

As you can see, the Resolution that Admits Israel to the UN as a member, used Resolution 181 in its process. Thus, while 181 may be questionable on is own, clearly 11 May 1949, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE THIRD SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PART II, A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949, puts it in play to establish the Jewish State.

This Arab Argument that Res 181 is totally without standing is not correct. It is subterfuge by Arab and Palestinian war radicals to confuse the Issue.

Remember, to understand any one aspect of the issue, you have to read the entire book. The Arab's War Coalition did not accept 181. But that doen't mean that the Israelis and the UN could not incorporate it into another standing document as an attachment and make the applicable portions of it viable. Clearly this was done in both the Israeli application for admission and the UN General Assembly approval, so written into the body.

When that idiot professor talks about 181, he is talking about the 181 as it creates the two state solution (which the Arab and Palestinians rejected and opted for war - warlike as they are). It did not prevent the International Community and Israeli from accepting their half.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Israel's acceptance into the UN was a diplomatic slight of hand. If you read your own link you would wonder how Israel was ever admitted.

A legitimate state must have a defined territory. Israel has no territory so the UN recognized Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines.

This is what the UN said about the armistice lines.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

When Israel was admitted into the UN it had no land or borders. If it did those borders would be used.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I give you only partial credit for that answer.

Indeed, Israel's acceptance into the UN was a diplomatic slight of hand. If you read your own link you would wonder how Israel was ever admitted.

A legitimate state must have a defined territory. Israel has no territory so the UN recognized Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines.

(COMMENT)

That is because the UN had already established the 1948 borders in 1947.

This is what the UN said about the armistice lines.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

When Israel was admitted into the UN it had no land or borders. If it did those borders would be used.

(COMMENT)

This is Armistice boiler plate. No "Armistice Lines" are borders. They establish zones of control. That is because an "Armistice" does not end a war (ceasefire, armistice, treaty is the progression).

In the Application and Admission documentation the Res 181 Annex "A" map was attached, enclosed, and approved. It is simply a matter of record.

It is unassailable. No matter what argument you may which to promote, it is what it is. When the UN address Israel and refers to the 1948 borders, that is the Map they use (drawn in '47, approved in '49).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...what reaction from DC are you expecting when Israel annexes Area C?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I give you only partial credit for that answer.

Indeed, Israel's acceptance into the UN was a diplomatic slight of hand. If you read your own link you would wonder how Israel was ever admitted.

A legitimate state must have a defined territory. Israel has no territory so the UN recognized Israel inside the 1949 armistice lines.

(COMMENT)

That is because the UN had already established the 1948 borders in 1947.

This is what the UN said about the armistice lines.

2. The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary,...

The Avalon Project : Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, February 24, 1949

When Israel was admitted into the UN it had no land or borders. If it did those borders would be used.

(COMMENT)

This is Armistice boiler plate. No "Armistice Lines" are borders. They establish zones of control. That is because an "Armistice" does not end a war (ceasefire, armistice, treaty is the progression).

In the Application and Admission documentation the Res 181 Annex "A" map was attached, enclosed, and approved. It is simply a matter of record.

It is unassailable. No matter what argument you may which to promote, it is what it is. When the UN address Israel and refers to the 1948 borders, that is the Map they use (drawn in '47, approved in '49).

Most Respectfully,
R

Where did you get this information. I have never heard this one before?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

When I look at the Battle Map for the West Bank, and study Areas "A," "B," and "C," it begins to take on an image of one of those science pictures you sometimes see of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Rocco...what reaction from DC are you expecting when Israel annexes Area C?

(COMMENT)

I can just imagine the look on Washington's faces when the suggestion first came to light. The issue is getting more complicated by the minute. To annex area "C" is going to be a big mistake, and may trigger yet another war. Such a move would, essentially be annexing the West Bank.

This kind of talk is a prelude to trouble. The US is going to have a tough time Justifying support for Israel on a move like this.

Israel should be considering withdrawing back to the '67 lines instead of attempting to expand it control. Israel cannot possibly hope to successfully defend against another Arab Army attack and have a security problem in its rear area from (what will prove to be) a huge 5th Columnist movement. It is just the tactical mistake and politically strategic error the Arab world is waiting for Israel to make.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Understand, that I am not saying that Res 181 is an implementing document. It is a reference document that, at the time, was necessary.

See reprint here:

Where did you get this information. I have never heard this one before?

References:

1. Glossary of Diplomatic Terms - e Diplomat
2. United Nations member States - Non-member state maintaining observer mission
3. Israel's application for UN membership - Press release (29 November 1948)
4. A/PV.207 of 11 May 1949
5. A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949
6. A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947
7. Palestine - Plan of Partition with Economic Union under A/RES/181 - Map (28 February 1956)
8. Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt
9. Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty
10. Peace Agreement Between Israel and Lebanon
11. Syria-Israel Disengagement Agreement (1974)

This is a confusing timeline Issue. At the time of Admission, Israel used the documentation, recommendation and approval processes at hand and available. While today, the Res 181 is null and void as a Two-State Agreement, it did at the time, describe the boundaries of the Jewish State. This set the initial territorial description for Israel. After the '67 War, and the Armistice and treaties that followed, boundaries were set by the treaties.

In the case for Israel, the Application (Ref #5) of Israel (Notice by UN for Consideration Ref #3) for admission to membership in the United Nation report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee (A/855) was considered and approved on official recorded in the A/PV.207 11 May 1949 (Reference #4, supra). In that recognition, The UN said, in part:

The General Assembly had adopted resolution 181 (II) containing provisions to that effect on 29 November 1947. That resolution was still in effect, since it had been, neither modified nor revoked by a later decision of the General Assembly.

On the first anniversary of General Assembly resolution 181 (II) providing for partition, the Provisional Government of the State of Israel had presented its application for admission, an application which was before the General Assembly after having been approved by the Security Council.

At the invitation of the President, the delegation of Israel took its place in the General Assembly.

Included as Part of the Application for Admission was the November 1947 Resolution of the General Assembly (181 (II))(Ref #6). In Annex A (Ref #7) of Res 181 was the Map. In Part IIB of Res 181, is a written description of the 1948 Boundaries for the Jewish State. It was used as part of the Application since it had already been favorably recommended by committee.

While UN Resolution 181, was a none-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, it was incorporated into the application process as an Annex for the territorial description, as it pertained to the description of Israel as the Jewish State under consideration. While it is true that Resolution 181 has non-binding ramification, it was not an obstruction to the use of the descriptions that were previously committee approved separately. In this case, it was used only as an Annex to the Map and narrative territorial description. The recognition of this was already hammered-out by ad Hoc Committee which vetted the application for membership.

It is actual more favorable to Israel that the Res 181, as a Two-State Agreement, was made irrelevant (much more favorable). If it were binding, there would be a move to demand Israel return to the 1948 Boundaries. Instead, since the '67 War and the new set of negotiated boundaries based on the combat outcome exist; set by the treaties between Israel and the aggressor waring parties. For instance, Article II of Annex 1 to the (Ref #8) Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt, the new boundary is set. Artilce III of the Israeli Jordanian Peace Treaty (Ref #9) set the new boundaries between those states. A similar arrangement between Israel and Lebanon exists (Ref #10). Syria and Israel have a "Disengagement Agreement" (Ref #11), which is similar to an "Armistice." The 1967 boundaries represent territory won by conquest and consolidated through an internationally recognized set of equitable settlements documented by treaty, and recognized by the UN.

If there is a specific question pertaining to this issue, I'll be happy to try and answer it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

When I look at the Battle Map for the West Bank, and study Areas "A," "B," and "C," it begins to take on an image of one of those science pictures you sometimes see of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Rocco...what reaction from DC are you expecting when Israel annexes Area C?

(COMMENT)

I can just imagine the look on Washington's faces when the suggestion first came to light. The issue is getting more complicated by the minute. To annex area "C" is going to be a big mistake, and may trigger yet another war. Such a move would, essentially be annexing the West Bank.

This kind of talk is a prelude to trouble. The US is going to have a tough time Justifying support for Israel on a move like this.

Israel should be considering withdrawing back to the '67 lines instead of attempting to expand it control. Israel cannot possibly hope to successfully defend against another Arab Army attack and have a security problem in its rear area from (what will prove to be) a huge 5th Columnist movement. It is just the tactical mistake and politically strategic error the Arab world is waiting for Israel to make.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco... your knowledge and patience have elevated the level of civil debate in this forum to heights I would never have imagined possible. Thank you for all your insights.

Re: the "huge 5th columnist movement" you mentioned; would that be a million Palestinians?

It has become very difficult for me to imagine either a two-state or (democratic) one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

Thank you for the kind words.

Re: the "huge 5th columnist movement" you mentioned; would that be a million Palestinians?

It has become very difficult for me to imagine either a two-state or (democratic) one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the 5th Columnist would be the Palestinians. And that would represent a significant rear area security problem that would require an unbelievable police action beyond the military defensive posture.

Yes - I agree; in all probability neither the UN or the Oslo Two-State solutions will not work.

BUT, if the West Bank was placed under a Jordanian (Arab) Mandate (which would be a hard sale to Jordan), and Gaza given an individualized independence under UN protection, then there is a possibility that one of the two areas will economically survive (my bet, the West Bank).

The problem is going to be what to do with the Israeli Settlers that were moved into the area, and the potential for dual citizenship.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

georgephillip, et al,

When I look at the Battle Map for the West Bank, and study Areas "A," "B," and "C," it begins to take on an image of one of those science pictures you sometimes see of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Rocco...what reaction from DC are you expecting when Israel annexes Area C?

(COMMENT)

I can just imagine the look on Washington's faces when the suggestion first came to light. The issue is getting more complicated by the minute. To annex area "C" is going to be a big mistake, and may trigger yet another war. Such a move would, essentially be annexing the West Bank.

This kind of talk is a prelude to trouble. The US is going to have a tough time Justifying support for Israel on a move like this.

Israel should be considering withdrawing back to the '67 lines instead of attempting to expand it control. Israel cannot possibly hope to successfully defend against another Arab Army attack and have a security problem in its rear area from (what will prove to be) a huge 5th Columnist movement. It is just the tactical mistake and politically strategic error the Arab world is waiting for Israel to make.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco... your knowledge and patience have elevated the level of civil debate in this forum to heights I would never have imagined possible. Thank you for all your insights.

Re: the "huge 5th columnist movement" you mentioned; would that be a million Palestinians?

It has become very difficult for me to imagine either a two-state or (democratic) one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.

Georgie, these items have been brought up before by the Zionists and the issue quickly turns into accusations of lying, subtrafuge and introducing Zionist "propaganda." Go back and check thru this forum and starting after the 1st item in a thread, the subject turns to shit. That's why the Zionsts are skeptical about you and your kind.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Good points, however, Hamas won the elections in all of Palestine not just in Gaza.

Israel kicks all the Jews out of Gaza so they can have free elections. The Palistinians then elect a terrorist organization to be their government. As MJB always insists; Palestinian Mentality. Whatcha gonna do?

They are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected.

Good point, they are seen as human beings in Palestine, not terrorists.

 

[irosie91]

Israel kicks all the Jews out of Gaza so they can have free elections. The Palistinians then elect a terrorist organization to be their government. As MJB always insists; Palestinian Mentality. Whatcha gonna do?

They are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected.

Good point, they are seen as human beings in Palestine, not terrorists.

unless one of their sluts ties a bomb to her stinking ass----then she is seen as
a shahidah in jannah-----or one of their dogs sneaks into a house and slits the throat
of a jewish infant that one is BELOVED OF ALLAH AND ISA if one goes
abroad and grabs a jewish kid and shoots his brains out---then he is a 'god'
for sherri

 

[Hossfly]

Israel kicks all the Jews out of Gaza so they can have free elections. The Palistinians then elect a terrorist organization to be their government. As MJB always insists; Palestinian Mentality. Whatcha gonna do?

They are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected.

Good point, they are seen as human beings in Palestine, not terrorists.

That all depends on who is looking at them, Frau Sherri. To you and Tinnie they are angels; to many others they are terrorists. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.

 

[irosie91]

Its all a matter of NOMENCLATURE some years ago a brilliant philospher decided to solve the cockroach problem by befriending them and renaming them SNUGGLE-BUGS

Similarly----the kassam rocket problem can be solved by befriending them and
renaming them LOVE MISSILES ----or even CUPIDS NAILS

afterall-----the problem of the UMMAH and its claim on the 'muslim land'
of Israel/judea was SOLVED by renaming a bunch of arab muslims
******PALESTINIANS**********

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

When I look at the Battle Map for the West Bank, and study Areas "A," "B," and "C," it begins to take on an image of one of those science pictures you sometimes see of the Cosmic Background Radiation.


(COMMENT)

I can just imagine the look on Washington's faces when the suggestion first came to light. The issue is getting more complicated by the minute. To annex area "C" is going to be a big mistake, and may trigger yet another war. Such a move would, essentially be annexing the West Bank.

This kind of talk is a prelude to trouble. The US is going to have a tough time Justifying support for Israel on a move like this.

Israel should be considering withdrawing back to the '67 lines instead of attempting to expand it control. Israel cannot possibly hope to successfully defend against another Arab Army attack and have a security problem in its rear area from (what will prove to be) a huge 5th Columnist movement. It is just the tactical mistake and politically strategic error the Arab world is waiting for Israel to make.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco... your knowledge and patience have elevated the level of civil debate in this forum to heights I would never have imagined possible. Thank you for all your insights.

Re: the "huge 5th columnist movement" you mentioned; would that be a million Palestinians?

It has become very difficult for me to imagine either a two-state or (democratic) one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem.

Georgie, these items have been brought up before by the Zionists and the issue quickly turns into accusations of lying, subtrafuge and introducing Zionist "propaganda." Go back and check thru this forum and starting after the 1st item in a thread, the subject turns to shit. That's why the Zionsts are skeptical about you and your kind.

Which items are you talking about, Hossie.
BTW, I'm skeptical of the true motives of many Zionists.

 

[RoccoR]

SherriMunnerlyn, P F Tinmore, Hossfly, et al,

Actually, there may be truth in this. Terrorism is often a subjective analysis.

Israel kicks all the Jews out of Gaza so they can have free elections. The Palistinians then elect a terrorist organization to be their government. As MJB always insists; Palestinian Mentality. Whatcha gonna do?

They are not terrorists in Palestine where they were elected.

Good point, they are seen as human beings in Palestine, not terrorists.

(COMMENT)

Whether you're viewing the Palestinian Authority (PA), Hamas or a variant of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), every element vying for power recognizes that the Palestinians need to be unified - if any bid for nationalization is to be successful. Even the general Palestinian population understands this.

It is clear that the external powers to the region do not have a very accurate grasp of who the Palestinian citizenry actually view HAMAS, Fatah, or Hezbollah.

Poll Data: PSR poll No. 39 - Full Analysis
PSR - Survey Research Unit: Poll No. 39 - Full Analysis

While nearly everyone agrees that unification must be critical to a solution, probably less than half of the Palestinian people think an end the occupation and focus on building an independent state is a priority. This leads to a Catch-22 condition for the Israelis. If the Israelis losen the reigns on coastal security and seaborne commerce restrictions will lead to exploitation by elements like HAMAS to expand weapons smuggling to destabilize the security of Israel. Yet, in order to improve the economic welfare of Gaza, economic conditions must be improved. The question is how to achieve the goal if the Palestinian people believe that subversive activity is a higher priority than building their nation?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, et al,

Hmmm. Taming the element within (Zionist over confidence) will be a problem; no doubt. It is something in the psyche that I don't understand.

Georgie, these items have been brought up before by the Zionists and the issue quickly turns into accusations of lying, subtrafuge and introducing Zionist "propaganda." Go back and check thru this forum and starting after the 1st item in a thread, the subject turns to shit. That's why the Zionsts are skeptical about you and your kind.

(COMMENT)

It is a hell of a risk assessment to take. To assume that the indigenous Palestinian doesn't pose a significant internal rear area security threat in the event that a 5th Invasion (heaven forbid) should ignite is almost unacceptable and prejudicial to preparedness. It ignores the experience of the Syrian government with its popular uprising, it ignores the experience of the Coalition in Iraq, it ignores what occurred in Libya, etc, etc. It presupposes that the IDF can pull double duty; defending the front, while suppressing a resistance movement in their rear area. It is a risk which could cripple the IDF if a full scale engagement were to occur.

The Zionist (and those that for some reason believe that Israeli sovereignty extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean), in their unjustifiable zeal to expand and secure into the West Bank could lead to a major Israeli military defeat. Just one look at the situation map that plots Israeli Settlements shows the enormity of the problem in mounting a defense to protect settlements in the West Bank.

There are an overwhelming number of Israeli settlers that hold the mantra that "We’re Here to Stay." Their are an overwhelming number of Israelis who believe that having the Israeli Capitol in Jerusalem is not only tactically sound, but an essential imperative; something that Israel is willing to risk all to maintain. And this creates a problem, domestically, for the Israeli government. What would it take to withdraw the settlers and captial back to the '67 borders if it were to be the only negotiable means to secure regional peace? Many of these people are fanatical and the withdrawal process could set the conditions for a reverse resistance. Then the Israeli security problem is amplified to even a greater extent. The many of the settlers would rather weaken the government and the prospects for peace than withdraw.

The Israels have built their own little hell; a Jewish Gordian Knot. It will be interesting to see how the Israelis deal with unraveling the challenge. The key question becomes what are the Israelis willing to do in their effort to achieve a lasting Israeli-Palestinian Peace.

Yes, it maybe the case that the Israelis have set a course on a self-destructive path; a high risk path at a minimum.

Israel plans to step up arrests of suspected militants in the occupied West Bank to prevent a rising tide of low-intensity conflict and civil unrest from turning into an uprising, security sources say.
"There is a certain (Palestinian) awakening," one source said.

"As a consequence a decision was taken within the security establishment to increase intelligence activity and arrests among members of Hamas or activists against Israel," he added. "It started in the past few days and will increase."
Recent events, however, suggest that such a policy could backfire.
Source: http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=56253

Reacting to a new Fatah logo that appears to depict a united, Israel-free Palestine, the Jewish organization B’nai Brith says it shows the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are lukewarm about a two-state-solution.
“We are continuing to warn the [Canadian] government not to be fooled into accepting the notion that Fatah and Abbas want real peace with the Jewish state,” said Frank Dimant, head of B’nai Brith Canada. “[A] true partner for peace on the Palestinian side does not exist.”
His remarks echo the U.S.-based Zionist Organization of America, which said the logo proves Fatah and the PA “have no interest in peace with Israel, only its destruction.”
Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...-sparks-outrage-over-palestinian-nationalism/

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Hossfly, et al,

Hmmm. Taming the element within (Zionist over confidence) will be a problem; no doubt. It is something in the psyche that I don't understand.

Georgie, these items have been brought up before by the Zionists and the issue quickly turns into accusations of lying, subtrafuge and introducing Zionist "propaganda." Go back and check thru this forum and starting after the 1st item in a thread, the subject turns to shit. That's why the Zionsts are skeptical about you and your kind.

(COMMENT)

It is a hell of a risk assessment to take. To assume that the indigenous Palestinian doesn't pose a significant internal rear area security threat in the event that a 5th Invasion (heaven forbid) should ignite is almost unacceptable and prejudicial to preparedness. It ignores the experience of the Syrian government with its popular uprising, it ignores the experience of the Coalition in Iraq, it ignores what occurred in Libya, etc, etc. It presupposes that the IDF can pull double duty; defending the front, while suppressing a resistance movement in their rear area. It is a risk which could cripple the IDF if a full scale engagement were to occur.

The Zionist (and those that for some reason believe that Israeli sovereignty extends from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean), in their unjustifiable zeal to expand and secure into the West Bank could lead to a major Israeli military defeat. Just one look at the situation map that plots Israeli Settlements shows the enormity of the problem in mounting a defense to protect settlements in the West Bank.

There are an overwhelming number of Israeli settlers that hold the mantra that "We’re Here to Stay." Their are an overwhelming number of Israelis who believe that having the Israeli Capitol in Jerusalem is not only tactically sound, but an essential imperative; something that Israel is willing to risk all to maintain. And this creates a problem, domestically, for the Israeli government. What would it take to withdraw the settlers and captial back to the '67 borders if it were to be the only negotiable means to secure regional peace? Many of these people are fanatical and the withdrawal process could set the conditions for a reverse resistance. Then the Israeli security problem is amplified to even a greater extent. The many of the settlers would rather weaken the government and the prospects for peace than withdraw.

The Israels have built their own little hell; a Jewish Gordian Knot. It will be interesting to see how the Israelis deal with unraveling the challenge. The key question becomes what are the Israelis willing to do in their effort to achieve a lasting Israeli-Palestinian Peace.

Yes, it maybe the case that the Israelis have set a course on a self-destructive path; a high risk path at a minimum.

Israel plans to step up arrests of suspected militants in the occupied West Bank to prevent a rising tide of low-intensity conflict and civil unrest from turning into an uprising, security sources say.
"There is a certain (Palestinian) awakening," one source said.

"As a consequence a decision was taken within the security establishment to increase intelligence activity and arrests among members of Hamas or activists against Israel," he added. "It started in the past few days and will increase."
Recent events, however, suggest that such a policy could backfire.
Source: .:Middle East Online::Israel arresting Palestinians to preempt uprising :.

Reacting to a new Fatah logo that appears to depict a united, Israel-free Palestine, the Jewish organization B’nai Brith says it shows the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are lukewarm about a two-state-solution.
“We are continuing to warn the [Canadian] government not to be fooled into accepting the notion that Fatah and Abbas want real peace with the Jewish state,” said Frank Dimant, head of B’nai Brith Canada. “[A] true partner for peace on the Palestinian side does not exist.”
His remarks echo the U.S.-based Zionist Organization of America, which said the logo proves Fatah and the PA “have no interest in peace with Israel, only its destruction.”
Source: New Fatah logo sparks outrage over Palestinian nationalism | Israel & Middle East | World | News | National Post

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course this goes back to what I gave been posting.

Reacting to a new Fatah logo that appears to depict a united, Israel-free Palestine, the Jewish organization B’nai Brith says it shows the Palestinian Authority and President Mahmoud Abbas are lukewarm about a two-state-solution.
“We are continuing to warn the [Canadian] government not to be fooled into accepting the notion that Fatah and Abbas want real peace with the Jewish state,” said Frank Dimant, head of B’nai Brith Canada. “[A] true partner for peace on the Palestinian side does not exist.”
His remarks echo the U.S.-based Zionist Organization of America, which said the logo proves Fatah and the PA “have no interest in peace with Israel, only its destruction.”
Source: New Fatah logo sparks outrage over Palestinian nationalism | Israel & Middle East | World | News | National Post

Israel constantly complains that the Palestinians have maps that do not show Israel.

What Israel will never, never, never say is that those maps are geographically correct. These maps show Palestine inside its international borders. Israel is not on the maps because Israel has no borders.

Maps are drawings of borders and everything inside those borders are the countries that those borders define. Where or why would you put a country on a map that has no borders?

 

[irosie91]

A relative of a friend of mine is in court because of a property boundry dispute with his neighbor----the neighbor built a wall which encroaches
on the person's property The property line IS in dispute
which according to Tinnie---PROVES that the man does not own
his house-----his family does not exist----and even he does not exist.
Tinnie is a GENIUS

 

[ima]

A relative of a friend of mine is in court because of a property boundry dispute with his neighbor----the neighbor built a wall which encroaches
on the person's property The property line IS in dispute
which according to Tinnie---PROVES that the man does not own
his house-----his family does not exist----and even he does not exist.
Tinnie is a GENIUS

That's like comparing apples to donkey diarrhea. Please try again.