Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

The Arab Palestinian people have been in that land for a long-ass time and they should have sovereignty and self-government on part of it.

Like the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa or factories in Haifa. Shouldn't they get their part?

 

[Shusha]

The Arab Palestinian people have been in that land for a long-ass time and they should have sovereignty and self-government on part of it.

Like the Palestinians who owned orange groves in Jaffa or factories in Haifa. Shouldn't they get their part?

Of Palestine? Most certainly they should. They should be restored to orange groves or factories or be compensated in kind. Just like the million Jews uprooted in the conflict should be restored or compensated in Israel. Both should certainly be able to have that in a sovereign territory where they have the ability to self-determine and self-govern.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, that is correct; however, your interpretation is wrong.

Nothing was ceded to Palestine; nor any of the territories under Mandate. It all went to the control of the Allied Powers.

Drawing up the framework of nationality, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne stated:

“Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.”​

Article 30 is of a great significance. It constituted a declaration of existing international law and the standard practice of states. This was despite the absence of a definite international law rule of state succession under which the nationals of predecessor state could ipso facto acquire the nationality of the successor.129 “As a rule, however, States have conferred their nationality on the former nationals of the predecessor State.”130 In practice, almost all peace treaties concluded between the Allies and other states at the end of World War I embodied nationality provisions similar to those of the Treaty of Lausanne. The inhabitants of Palestine, as the successors of this territory, henceforth acquired Palestinian nationality even if there was no treaty with Turkey.131

(COMMENT)

The territory, like the territories assigned to all the other Mandates, were transferred to the Mandate System; NOT to the Palestinians.

The nationality issue and the sovereignty issue are distinct and separate things. Article is nothing more than the backdrop for the citizenship process already in place. The Treaty of Lausanne did not issue a new requirement, but incorporated the language used in the 1922 Palestine Legislative Council Election Order which said:

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:–

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

The 1924 Treaty adopted the language of the law already in place from 1922; as did the 1925 Citizenship Order; not the other way around.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You are partially correct.

• They believe Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Making it impossible for a two-State solution.

The territory defined by their international borders.

Isn't that the meaning of the right to territorial integrity?

(COMMENT)

The problem is here, that the Government of Palestine has no international borders. However,Israel has both International Borders by Treaty and International Demarcation Lines.

Further, what the Arab Palestinians currently claim as theirs is legally contested under the doctrine of: Uti possidetis juris and the impact of the concept of "terra nullius." I have noticed that everyone, including the International Court of Justice, ignored these hot button issues.

But there is no Government representing the Palestinian People that had established sovereignty (full and complete control) until Israel gave the Gaza Strip back in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now don't let this confuse you.

• They believe Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. Making it impossible for a two-State solution.

The territory defined by their international borders.

Isn't that the meaning of the right to territorial integrity?

No, the right to territorial integrity does NOT mean that territorial units are indivisible.

Well then what does it mean?

This is going to be good.

(COMMENT)

"Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states."

The State of Palestine (alla 1988), or pressures from the Arab League should not attempt actions that would change Israel's borders; without a valid claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The territory, like the territories assigned to all the other Mandates, were transferred to the Mandate System; NOT to the Palestinians.

You are starting with false premise again.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non- annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The territory was ceded to Palestine not the Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states."

So then, nobody has the authority to change Palestine's international borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The problem is here, that the Government of Palestine has no international borders.

Palestine has had international borders since 1922.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no Palestine to cede the sovereignty to. Palestine was the Short Title to the territory to which the Mandate Applied.

The territory, like the territories assigned to all the other Mandates, were transferred to the Mandate System; NOT to the Palestinians.

You are starting with false premise again.

"Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations." The Court recalled that, in its 1950 opinion on the International Status of South West Africa, it held that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance" with respect to territories that were placed under the Mandate system: "the principle of non- annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of... peoples not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization.,,

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

The territory was ceded to Palestine not the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

During WWI nearly the entire Levant was Enemy Occupied territory.

If you, and I encourage you to read the decision, it is quite simple. And I believe you are misapplying the legal outcome.

​

I think it is one of the clearest Decisions I have ever seen.

Unless you are part of the system, you cannot unilaterally modify the authority of a Mandate. Not then and not now. And nothing was annexed during the period that any of the Mandates of the Middle East were active.

Annexation of East Jerusalem is very arguable not illegal. At the time it was annex, it was occupied Territory abandon by the previous sovereignty (Jordan 31 July 1988); making it terra nullius ("nobody's land"); left in the hands of Israel. BUT, most of the West Bank is so unproductive and dependent on other forms of tax supported income, that it is unlikely that Israel even wants it. It would be an unacceptable drain on the treasury.

This issue is cart ahead of the horse. Before this becomes an issue discussed under the permanent status of negotiations, the Government of Palestine has to decide if it actually wants to approach talks.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

"Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states."

So then, nobody has the authority to change Palestine's international borders.

Now he's starting to get it! Borders only change by agreement or treaty. So until Palestine (now called Israel) signs a treaty changing her borders, her borders are the same as they were in 1922.

Just like all the actual treaties say.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Annexation of East Jerusalem is very arguable not illegal. At the time it was annex, it was occupied Territory abandon by the previous sovereignty (Jordan 31 July 1988); making it terra nullius ("nobody's land"); left in the hands of Israel.

Jordan was not the previous sovereign. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan merely abandoned their occupation of Palestinian land. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

 

[Shusha]

RoccoR

I, too, wonder how you come to understand Jordan as sovereign over the West Bank. The only possible reasoning I can come up with is that somehow you consider parts of Israel to have been terra nullius circa 1948. And the only reasons I can come up with for THAT is either the implementation of UNGA 181 or that Israel ceded part of the territory.

Can you walk me through your thinking on that?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, this is a bit of Popular Fiction (no annexation) 'vs' Actual Reality (annexation).

Reference:

√ Article 47 → Fourth Geneva Convention states that:

“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived,
in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”​

Annexation of East Jerusalem is very arguable not illegal. At the time it was annex, it was occupied Territory abandon by the previous sovereignty (Jordan 31 July 1988); making it terra nullius ("nobody's land"); left in the hands of Israel.

Jordan was not the previous sovereign. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan merely abandoned their occupation of Palestinian land. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

I, too, wonder how you come to understand Jordan as sovereign over the West Bank. The only possible reasoning I can come up with is that somehow you consider parts of Israel to have been terra nullius circa 1948. And the only reasons I can come up with for THAT is either the implementation of UNGA 181 or that Israel ceded part of the territory.

Can you walk me through your thinking on that?

(COMMENT)

After the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Jordan occupied most of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Old City.

In April 1950, in what is sometime called the "Unification of the Two Banks," The King created "a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." A couple weeks later, the new Parliament (50% Arab-Palestinians and 50% Jordanians) approved the Annexation; extending the sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Policy Statement Prepared in the Department of State - Jordan

"The United States with the United Kingdom has favored the annexation by Jordan of Arab Palestine. Although the UK would have preferred to permit King Abdullah to annex this territory at an earlier date, we opposed precipitate action on the ground that it would have been detrimental to the negotiations then in progress in the Palestine Conciliation Commission."
​

Committee for Accuracy in Meddle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)

"While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal.​

In 1967, when Jordanian Artillery began firing into Israel, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began to route and pursue Jordanian forces in of the West Bank. This resulted in the occupation of Jordanian sovereign territory; and NOT the occupation of territory of the Arab Palestinians. BTW: This is why the UN most often refers to the West Bank as "territories occupied since 1967."

On 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan "announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank;" what is sometimes referred to as the Disengagement from the West Bank.

• The Doctrine of "terra nullius"
• Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
​

When HM King Hussein announced the Disengagement from the West Bank, he effectively abandon the West Bank, no longer sovereign territory of Jordan; but, under the effective control of Israel. Some people see this as the creation of the two requirements for annexation:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius),
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Theoretically, Israel has more of a claim to the West Bank than the Arab Palestinians. But, none of the Regional States want the trouble and baggage; let alone Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, this is a bit of Popular Fiction (no annexation) 'vs' Actual Reality (annexation).

Reference:

√ Article 47 → Fourth Geneva Convention states that:

“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived,
in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”​

Annexation of East Jerusalem is very arguable not illegal. At the time it was annex, it was occupied Territory abandon by the previous sovereignty (Jordan 31 July 1988); making it terra nullius ("nobody's land"); left in the hands of Israel.

Jordan was not the previous sovereign. It was occupied Palestinian territory. Jordan merely abandoned their occupation of Palestinian land. It is still occupied Palestinian territory.

I, too, wonder how you come to understand Jordan as sovereign over the West Bank. The only possible reasoning I can come up with is that somehow you consider parts of Israel to have been terra nullius circa 1948. And the only reasons I can come up with for THAT is either the implementation of UNGA 181 or that Israel ceded part of the territory.

Can you walk me through your thinking on that?

(COMMENT)

After the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Jordan occupied most of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Old City.

In April 1950, in what is sometime called the "Unification of the Two Banks," The King created "a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented." A couple weeks later, the new Parliament (50% Arab-Palestinians and 50% Jordanians) approved the Annexation; extending the sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Policy Statement Prepared in the Department of State - Jordan

"The United States with the United Kingdom has favored the annexation by Jordan of Arab Palestine. Although the UK would have preferred to permit King Abdullah to annex this territory at an earlier date, we opposed precipitate action on the ground that it would have been detrimental to the negotiations then in progress in the Palestine Conciliation Commission."
​

Committee for Accuracy in Meddle East Reporting in America (CAMERA)

"While Great Britain and Pakistan were the only countries that recognized Jordan’s annexation – all other nations, including the Arab states, rejected it -- Great Britain recognized only the annexation of the West Bank. It never recognized either Jordan or Israel’s sovereignty over any sector of Jerusalem, viewing both Jordan’s 1950 annexation and Israel’s annexation of west Jerusalem as illegal.​

In 1967, when Jordanian Artillery began firing into Israel, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began to route and pursue Jordanian forces in of the West Bank. This resulted in the occupation of Jordanian sovereign territory; and NOT the occupation of territory of the Arab Palestinians. BTW: This is why the UN most often refers to the West Bank as "territories occupied since 1967."

On 31 July 1988, the King of Jordan "announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank;" what is sometimes referred to as the Disengagement from the West Bank.

• The Doctrine of "terra nullius"
• Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty
​

When HM King Hussein announced the Disengagement from the West Bank, he effectively abandon the West Bank, no longer sovereign territory of Jordan; but, under the effective control of Israel. Some people see this as the creation of the two requirements for annexation:

(i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state (terra nullius),
(ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.​

Theoretically, Israel has more of a claim to the West Bank than the Arab Palestinians. But, none of the Regional States want the trouble and baggage; let alone Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah. Thank you. I have been wondering how you arrived at that conclusion. If I understand correctly, whether Jordan had the legal right to occupy and annex the West Bank is immaterial, since they did, in point of fact, do so and thus had actual sovereignty from 1948 until 1988. Fair summation?

 

[P F Tinmore]

√ Article 47 → Fourth Geneva Convention states that:

“Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived,
in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.”

So:

• The annexation of the West Bank by Jordan was illegitimate.
• The annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel is illegitimate.
• Oslo is illegitimate.

Thanks for the link.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In 1967, when Jordanian Artillery began firing into Israel, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began to route and pursue Jordanian forces in of the West Bank. This resulted in the occupation of Jordanian sovereign territory; and NOT the occupation of territory of the Arab Palestinians. BTW: This is why the UN most often refers to the West Bank as "territories occupied since 1967."

You are trying to confuse the issue. Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) after the 1948 war. Since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, Jordan's attempt failed. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.

After the 1967 war Jordan could not lose the West Bank because it was not theirs to lose. It was still Palestinian territory. Israel merely took over the occupation and used it to continue its settler colonial project.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not confusing the issue at all.

In 1967, when Jordanian Artillery began firing into Israel, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began to route and pursue Jordanian forces in of the West Bank. This resulted in the occupation of Jordanian sovereign territory; and NOT the occupation of territory of the Arab Palestinians. BTW: This is why the UN most often refers to the West Bank as "territories occupied since 1967."

You are trying to confuse the issue. Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) after the 1948 war. Since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, Jordan's attempt failed. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.

After the 1967 war Jordan could not lose the West Bank because it was not theirs to lose. It was still Palestinian territory. Israel merely took over the occupation and used it to continue its settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

The only vocal elements of the era that challenged the legitimacy of the Annexation of Jordan, were mostly Arab League Members.

Remember, in 1949, the was no Arab Palestinian government. The Ara-Palestinians declined to participate the the process of establishing a self-governing institution. Jordan stepped into the void. No countries were wiling to go to war over it, and no countries were interesting to establish sanctions.

There was no violation of Article 47, or the Charter, because the was no Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.

You are trying to find some legitimacy on which to base the conflict. It is simply not there.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not confusing the issue at all.

In 1967, when Jordanian Artillery began firing into Israel, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) began to route and pursue Jordanian forces in of the West Bank. This resulted in the occupation of Jordanian sovereign territory; and NOT the occupation of territory of the Arab Palestinians. BTW: This is why the UN most often refers to the West Bank as "territories occupied since 1967."

You are trying to confuse the issue. Jordan occupied the West Bank (Palestinian territory) after the 1948 war. Since it is illegal to annex occupied territory, Jordan's attempt failed. It was still occupied Palestinian territory.

After the 1967 war Jordan could not lose the West Bank because it was not theirs to lose. It was still Palestinian territory. Israel merely took over the occupation and used it to continue its settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

The only vocal elements of the era that challenged the legitimacy of the Annexation of Jordan, were mostly Arab League Members.

Remember, in 1949, the was no Arab Palestinian government. The Ara-Palestinians declined to participate the the process of establishing a self-governing institution. Jordan stepped into the void. No countries were wiling to go to war over it, and no countries were interesting to establish sanctions.

There was no violation of Article 47, or the Charter, because the was no Arab Palestinian Sovereignty.

You are trying to find some legitimacy on which to base the conflict. It is simply not there.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where do you get the idea that there was no sovereignty. The people have the sovereignty.

(a)Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self determination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: > Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is one possible interpretation out of the many worlds of interpretation. Thinking like this is not going to get the Arab Palestinian any closer to sovereignty (THAT IS: full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies).

The Arab Palestinians were not the sovereign power over the West Bank (or any other portion of the territory formerly under the Mandate).

In fact, it is debatable whether of not the Arab Palestinian had sovereignty over any territory in the last 1000 years.

Where do you get the idea that there was no sovereignty. The people have the sovereignty.

(a)Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self determination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

(COMMENT)

Several points:

• The territory was not conquered.

• The territory came under Israeli control as Jordanian Forces made a very hasty withdrawal under fast pursuit.

• If, as you claim, the West Bank was not annexed by Jordan (I'm not sure how that can be), then the territory was under Israeli Control with no prior claim by the Arab Palestinians as stated in 1947 and '48 rejection to participate. Who maintained control and who had sovereignty? You cannot have sovereignty if you don't have and never had sovereign control.​

Yes... The Israelis have "inalienability of sovereignty" even though the Arab League and Arab Palestinians opened hostilities through the actual use of force. While in defense of Israeli sovereignty established under the right of self-determination, these territories, being misuse as military staging areas for the unlawful use of force [Article 2(4)], legitimately came under Israeli control.

The Arab Palestinians are always claiming they have inalienable rights and therefore someones owes them something for nothing. The claim they can open-up a conflict without any consequences. They want their territory back if they lose, so they can do it again. They claim that they can violate the Geneva Convention, yet hold Israel to ever defense measure and countermeasure as if the Arab Palestinians never killed any men, women and children in the 70 years. The Arab Palestinians are exceptionally proud of the record suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket fire on civilians, kidnapping and murder, ambushes on tourist and school buses, and attacks no family cars (just to name a few things)..

In the history of the world, there has probably never been such a cutthroat culture with such a bloody past history of criminal behaviors as the Arab Palestinians who say that everything they do is justified because the have the inalienable right to maim, murder and molest.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: > Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is one possible interpretation out of the many worlds of interpretation. Thinking like this is not going to get the Arab Palestinian any closer to sovereignty (THAT IS: full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies).

The Arab Palestinians were not the sovereign power over the West Bank (or any other portion of the territory formerly under the Mandate).

In fact, it is debatable whether of not the Arab Palestinian had sovereignty over any territory in the last 1000 years.

Where do you get the idea that there was no sovereignty. The people have the sovereignty.

(a)Sovereignty and title in an occupied territory are not vested in the occupying power. The roots of this principle emanate from the principle of the inalienability of sovereignty through actual or threatened use of force. Under contemporary international law, and in view of the principle of self determination, sovereignty is vested in the population under occupation.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=bjil​

(COMMENT)

Several points:

• The territory was not conquered.

• The territory came under Israeli control as Jordanian Forces made a very hasty withdrawal under fast pursuit.

• If, as you claim, the West Bank was not annexed by Jordan (I'm not sure how that can be), then the territory was under Israeli Control with no prior claim by the Arab Palestinians as stated in 1947 and '48 rejection to participate. Who maintained control and who had sovereignty? You cannot have sovereignty if you don't have and never had sovereign control.​

Yes... The Israelis have "inalienability of sovereignty" even though the Arab League and Arab Palestinians opened hostilities through the actual use of force. While in defense of Israeli sovereignty established under the right of self-determination, these territories, being misuse as military staging areas for the unlawful use of force [Article 2(4)], legitimately came under Israeli control.

The Arab Palestinians are always claiming they have inalienable rights and therefore someones owes them something for nothing. The claim they can open-up a conflict without any consequences. They want their territory back if they lose, so they can do it again. They claim that they can violate the Geneva Convention, yet hold Israel to ever defense measure and countermeasure as if the Arab Palestinians never killed any men, women and children in the 70 years. The Arab Palestinians are exceptionally proud of the record suicide bombing, indiscriminate rocket fire on civilians, kidnapping and murder, ambushes on tourist and school buses, and attacks no family cars (just to name a few things)..

In the history of the world, there has probably never been such a cutthroat culture with such a bloody past history of criminal behaviors as the Arab Palestinians who say that everything they do is justified because the have the inalienable right to maim, murder and molest.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your problem is that you think power trumps rights. That those in military control have sovereignty over those who are lesser armed. That was true a couple hundred years ago but the world has moved on. We are trying to be more civilized. Gone (supposedly) are the days of colonialism and foreign domination.

It seems that Israel did not get the memo.