Discussion in 'Israel and Palestine' started by P F Tinmore, Nov 9, 2017.
Good Morning from the occupied Jerusalem ..
Not really. Jews cannot privately purchase land in area C.
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
That might make a difference3 if it were the case that the Arab Palestinians were actually invaded. But that is not the case.
The Arab Palestinians rejected the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions.
◈ You might be able to make a case that the Jordanians were invaded.
◈ You might be able to make a case for the Jordanians being the invaders.
◈ You might be able to make the case that the 1967 Six-Day War was really an Extention of the 1948 Invasion by the Arab League.
But you cannot make the case that the Arab Palestinians, which were not a party to the 1948 conflict, and were not a party to the Six-Day War, --- were invaded. The Arab Palestinians had no territorial control or integrity over any territory that was not continuously controlled by one or another of other powers for ≈ 800 years prior. And certainly not since the Armistice of Mudros (1918).
Foreign troops attacking the locals. How is that not an invasion?
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Coyote, et al,
This is true, as far as it goes.
The "stone-throwing" is NOT an "act of terrorism" (in and by itself). It is a "criminal act" that results in the support, facilitates of terrorist activity; or encouraging terrorist activities.
Stone-throwing is also used as a means to incite further violence. In some cases, "stone-throwing" is an action that is specifically designed to be a media event contrived and choreographed for maximum presentation for a propaganda effect of exaggerated events.
Remember, "stone-throwing" is against International Humanitarian Law. It is not justified action or response to enforcement of law and order by any force construed to be an "Occupying Power."
I have noticed that the pro-Hostile Arab Palestinians movements like to portray the Arab Palestinian as victims using "stone-throwing" against a foreign oppressor as a lawful sign of displeasure. Conditioning the statement as if the act were legal and the Israeli response against the assault is illegal. Such an interpretation is 180º out of phase with the truth.
Separate names with a comma.