Three Israeli soldiers injured south of Bethlehem

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Call it what you want.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 10126373, member: 21837"
It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

(COMMENT)

It was a conflict between the citizens of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Natives: Or - former enemy population.
Foreign Settlers: Or - Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (NOT former enemy population).

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]
Not true. The foreign settlers were not legitimate citizens of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who says this.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Call it what you want.

[QUOTE="P F Tinmore, post: 10126373, member: 21837"
It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

(COMMENT)

It was a conflict between the citizens of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Natives: Or - former enemy population.
Foreign Settlers: Or - Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (NOT former enemy population).

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true. The foreign settlers were not legitimate citizens of Palestine.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Between 1922 and 1948, immigration to --- and the citizenship of --- the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was decided by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Coyote, et al,

Yes and NO...

(COMMENT)

Legitimate targeting is about a Rule of War (Customary IHL). So, yes --- if you consider it a "State of War," then it is "legit."

If, it is an "Occupation" then Article 68 of the GCIV applies. And it is (altogether) improper and punishable.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

Thats another lie.
Some Palestinians were expelled during the Mandatory Palestine civil war which was started by the Palestinians. But most of them were expelled after the 1948 war which was started hy the Arabs and which the Palestinians took part in.
You real what you sow.

It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.


Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

False. It was between Jewish resident & European Jews and Palestinian Arab residents & Arabs from other countries.

Who called it that? Everyone except you, because you like to make your own rules and your own history:

Google

 

[toastman]

It is not a question about whether Israel is occupying Palestine or not.

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

Israel was not a colonial project. That's Palestinian propaganda from your immense propaganda stash.

Sure, there were many right wing Zionist Jews who wanted to have all of mandatory Palestine, but the stated goal of Israel was to have a refuge for the Jewish people.

Indeed, and without the natives. That is why they were removed and are not allowed back.

Thats another lie.
Some Palestinians were expelled during the Mandatory Palestine civil war which was started by the Palestinians. But most of them were expelled after the 1948 war which was started hy the Arabs and which the Palestinians took part in.
You real what you sow.

It was a fight between the natives and foreign settlers.

Who would call that a "civil war?" Who coined that term?

People who want to hide the truth?

Like Tinmore

 

[teddyearp]

But just hour before, 14 people were run over in Jerusalem, and that was obvious terror attack. so...

And for that reason alone it is not too far to go to think that this was a possible 'attack' at the time as well, even though now it is known that it was not.

 

[teddyearp]

Cool. So with this attitude, why do you guys cry foul when these soldiers defend themselves when attacked?

But the IDF are the attacking and occupying force.
They can hardly complain when resistance fighters attack them.

Well I have reconsidered/retracted the nature of my OP in post #5, but since you want to continue to 'muddy' this up, let me 'clarify' what I meant in the quoted posts above since you clearly missed it.

What I meant is this. Since the IDF is the 'occupying' force, why do you folks post so many threads/posts condemning them when they retaliate against the 'resistance fighters' who attack them? I never said that the IDF were complaining.

Is that clear as mud for you now?

 

[teddyearp]

Three dead members of an invading army.
The IDF are there illegally as an invading force, so tough if they get killed.

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed. And this incident is now classified as an accident.

No matter, we see you now for who you are. You do not want peace at all. And if that is your case, then peace it will not be.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was a conflict between the citizens of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Natives: Or - former enemy population.
Foreign Settlers: Or - Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (NOT former enemy population).

Most Respectfully,
R
Not true. The foreign settlers were not legitimate citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Between 1922 and 1948, immigration to --- and the citizenship of --- the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was decided by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, it was imposed on Palestine by foreigners at the point of a gun. That was rejected by virtually all of the native population including the native Jews. This flies in the face of the LoN Covenant and violates the rights of the people.

...there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

 

[teddyearp]

Israel, first and foremost, was a colonial project and continues to be one today. Its stated goal for a hundred years is to replace the native population with foreign settlers.

It uses occupation and a constant "state of war" to accomplish its goal. Israel has had to violate a whole string of international laws to pursue its goal.

XXX

Tinmore, I respect your opinion and have taken a trip partially down the road of your reasons for your opinion, but once I got a couple miles down it I found the road too rocky to believe, so I must respectfully say that I disagree and am of the opinion that have become deluded by the information you chose to believe.

 

[teddyearp]

It was a conflict between the citizens of the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied.

Natives: Or - former enemy population.
Foreign Settlers: Or - Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country (NOT former enemy population).

Most Respectfully,
R
Not true. The foreign settlers were not legitimate citizens of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Between 1922 and 1948, immigration to --- and the citizenship of --- the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied was decided by the Mandatory.

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, it was imposed on Palestine by foreigners at the point of a gun. That was rejected by virtually all of the native population including the native Jews. This flies in the face of the LoN Covenant and violates the rights of the people.

...there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation...

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations​

Hehehe, you need to brush up on your forum skills Tinmore. I do not know what was quoted and what your response is . . . . .I know it is not easy . . . .

Just sayin'

 

[Kondor3]

The Israelis are not invaders.

The Israelis are conquerors

You admit Israel is the attacking force.

I admit that Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza as prizes in a defensive war. When you (1) initiate a war or (2) take sufficient provocative military actions so as to make preemption necessary as a survival tactic, and the lose the territory associated with such combat operations, you lose your claim to that territory. De facto, if not de jure.

 

[Indofred]

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed.

I know - he should have driven a little faster.

 

[toastman]

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed.

I know - he should have driven a little faster.

Again, typical Muslim blood lust

 

[Indofred]

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed.

I know - he should have driven a little faster.

Again, typical Muslim blood lust

Israeli troops invade and murder - they are legitimate targets of war, and the resistance movement in occupied lands.
That or the French resistance were wrong to oppose the Jew murdering Nazis.

Were they?

 

[docmauser1]

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed.

I know - he should have driven a little faster.

Bloodthirsty palistanians!!

 

[Beelzebub]

The Israelis are not invaders.

The Israelis are conquerors

You admit Israel is the attacking force.

I admit that Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza as prizes in a defensive war. When you (1) initiate a war or (2) take sufficient provocative military actions so as to make preemption necessary as a survival tactic, and the lose the territory associated with such combat operations, you lose your claim to that territory. De facto, if not de jure.

That was not 'defensive' by Israel. Jordan sent a small number of troops into the West Bank after Israeli forces had been massacring and expelling massive numbers or Palestinians, for a land grab.

Had Arab forces committed properly to an attack Israel would have been still-born. Seemingly a terrible outcome at the time, but it would have had a measure of justice for those European invaders who then and since seek to steal The Levant from those who it rightfully belongs to.

 

[docmauser1]

That was not 'defensive' by Israel. Jordan sent a small number of troops into the West Bank after Israeli forces had been massacring and expelling massive numbers or Palestinians, for a land grab.

Yeah! Palistanians have a right of return to Jordan!

 

[toastman]

You obviously missed the memo. The three IDF were not killed.

I know - he should have driven a little faster.

Again, typical Muslim blood lust

Israeli troops invade and murder - they are legitimate targets of war, and the resistance movement in occupied lands.
That or the French resistance were wrong to oppose the Jew murdering Nazis.

Were they?

What a retarded comparison. You are scum. Muslim blood lust

 

[toastman]

The Israelis are not invaders.

The Israelis are conquerors

You admit Israel is the attacking force.

I admit that Israel conquered the West Bank and Gaza as prizes in a defensive war. When you (1) initiate a war or (2) take sufficient provocative military actions so as to make preemption necessary as a survival tactic, and the lose the territory associated with such combat operations, you lose your claim to that territory. De facto, if not de jure.

That was not 'defensive' by Israel. Jordan sent a small number of troops into the West Bank after Israeli forces had been massacring and expelling massive numbers or Palestinians, for a land grab.

Had Arab forces committed properly to an attack Israel would have been still-born. Seemingly a terrible outcome at the time, but it would have had a measure of justice for those European invaders who then and since seek to steal The Levant from those who it rightfully belongs to.

"Israeli forces had been massacring and expelling massive numbers or Palestinians, for a land grab"

We are talking about 1967. Can you provide a link for this and make sure the date is prior to Jordan sending a small number of troops into the West Bank?

 

[Indofred]

Israeli troops invade and murder - they are legitimate targets of war, and the resistance movement in occupied lands.
That or the French resistance were wrong to oppose the Jew murdering Nazis.

Were they?

What a retarded comparison. You are scum. Muslim blood lust

Why is the IDF different from Nazi Germany's stormtroopers?
Both invaded, both engaged in mass murder and both tried to dominate an occupied people.