Civilians vs Combatents

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy. “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”

“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,” said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV. “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

"For Israeli Occupation Forces, it is open season; a season that lasts all year round. There are no permits required, no restrictions levied. They are vested with weaponry funded by U.S. taxpayers, strapped with loaded machine guns and ready to “shoot to kill” every moving target. Children wielding stones and knives are squashed dead. Shoot first, ask later. Israeli forces discern a revolting pleasure in cruelty and suffering. They’ve become so desensitized to carrying out extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians, inflicting unbearable agony on others, and pulling the trigger without so much as a second thought as if they’re playing a video game. The killing of Palestinian civilians has become so commonplace, such a natural part of conversation. With a shrill disregard for human life, they’ve become immersed in a world that long ago stopped recognizing the value of human life and human dignity; a world that robbed them of their will and reduced them to machines aiming at moving objects in keffiyehs to be exterminated like prey. Aggressive, unhinged, implacable soldiers have successfully demonized and dehumanized themselves more than anyone else."

So who are the real "terrorists"?

'Under Fire' - Israel's artillery policies scrutinised | AOAV

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Sadly I couldn't find data on mortar rounds or tank shells, but I'll keep looking. Here's an account confirming mortars were used Breaking the Silence › Testimony - The artillery is constantly firing

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy. “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”

“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,” said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV. “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

"For Israeli Occupation Forces, it is open season; a season that lasts all year round. There are no permits required, no restrictions levied. They are vested with weaponry funded by U.S. taxpayers, strapped with loaded machine guns and ready to “shoot to kill” every moving target. Children wielding stones and knives are squashed dead. Shoot first, ask later. Israeli forces discern a revolting pleasure in cruelty and suffering. They’ve become so desensitized to carrying out extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians, inflicting unbearable agony on others, and pulling the trigger without so much as a second thought as if they’re playing a video game. The killing of Palestinian civilians has become so commonplace, such a natural part of conversation. With a shrill disregard for human life, they’ve become immersed in a world that long ago stopped recognizing the value of human life and human dignity; a world that robbed them of their will and reduced them to machines aiming at moving objects in keffiyehs to be exterminated like prey. Aggressive, unhinged, implacable soldiers have successfully demonized and dehumanized themselves more than anyone else."

So who are the real "terrorists"?

'Under Fire' - Israel's artillery policies scrutinised | AOAV

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Sadly I couldn't find data on mortar rounds or tank shells, but I'll keep looking. Here's an account confirming mortars were used Breaking the Silence › Testimony - The artillery is constantly firing

"Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations...."

Such taqiyya is not going to help you. To suggest that israel is provoking the islamic terrorists in Gaza is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Your "..... because I say so" claims are mere piffle.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- knock it off.

Wasn't you that just used the "Declarative Theory" to justify Palestinian Statehood?

I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.

(COMMENT)

You are just trying to play semantics with wording.

The fact is, territorial sovereignty is defined by that perimeter in which the government exercises exclusive control over.

While it is absolutely easy to see where Israel exercises exclusive control (defined territory); it is the security barriers that the Palestinians are constantly complaining about. But it is damn near impossible to identify any perimeter (defined territory) to which the Arab Palestinians hold exclusive jurisdiction.

Don't try to play word games when there is tangible and observable evidence at hand that establishes the point of contention. In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League. Well, that is just foolish.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have attempted several times to militarily secure territory to which they were not entitled. And the net effect was that the area exclusive control for Israel today is greater that that in 1949. And the area of exclusive control for the Hostile Arab Palestinians is considerably smaller.

Forget your homegrown word-smithing to prove your point. Look at the hard reality.

And consider that the fact that there are HoAP that walk, talk and think like you, is one of the most compelling reasons that peace through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States has been totally lost --- wasted if you will --- on the HoAP.

Given the attitude of the HoAP and the ineptitude of the Government of Palestine, there does not seem to be much of an argument for the Israelis to adopt the concepts of the Arab Palestinian Fantasy World.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, you're making several errors in your argument here.

Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy. “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”

(COMMENT)

You act as if avery piece of munitions on the Battlefield is some kind of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) (Guided munitions differ from Free Flight munitions in that they have a guidance system and usually a much more sophisticated fusing system). And that there is a never ending supply of such ordnance and munitions. This is not true for the US Armed Forces. I don't know why you would think it would apply to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

Second, the Arab League has, in the past, demonstrated more than once that it is quite willing to utilize the combined military capacities of several nations to assault Israel. Thus, there must be on hand, at all times, such sufficient ordnance and munitions; Insensitive Munitions,

“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,”

said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV. “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

(COMMENT)

Well, if this nonsense if a war crime, then we must acknowledge that nearly every Free Flight Munition launched by the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) is a war crime. Since 2001, more than 15,200 rockets and mortars, an average of over 3 rocket attacks every single day, have targeted Israel. Each attack is a violation.

By the end of the first 48 hours period, as many as 800 Tomahawks (sea-based Tomahawks have 1000 lb. warheads, the air-based version can have up to 3000 lbs.)(a minimum of 400 Tons just in Tomahawks) fallen on Baghdad in 2003. "Smart weapons" -- the military calls them precision-guided munitions (PGMs) -- weren't widely used in 1991. Only 244 laser-guided bombs and 88 cruise missiles hit Iraq, out of a total of some 250,000 bombs dropped during the war.

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

(COMMENT)

The point being here, is that 800 Tons sounds like a lot, and if you are on the cross-hairs, it would be something; but, as conventional interdictions go, it is not a lot. And in terms of PGMs, that is like 1 in a 1000. In the 2003 Iraq War only 244 laser-guided bombs and 88 cruise missiles hit Iraq, out of a total of some 250,000 bombs dropped during the war.

The world did not blink because tonage is not necessarily how you judge the intensity on the battlefield. The Israel-Palestinians engagement are what we call Low Intensity Conflict. And HAMAS is becoming something that even the Arab Palestinians will want to distance themselves from.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- knock it off.

Wasn't you that just used the "Declarative Theory" to justify Palestinian Statehood?

I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.

(COMMENT)

You are just trying to play semantics with wording.

The fact is, territorial sovereignty is defined by that perimeter in which the government exercises exclusive control over.

While it is absolutely easy to see where Israel exercises exclusive control (defined territory); it is the security barriers that the Palestinians are constantly complaining about. But it is damn near impossible to identify any perimeter (defined territory) to which the Arab Palestinians hold exclusive jurisdiction.

Don't try to play word games when there is tangible and observable evidence at hand that establishes the point of contention. In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League. Well, that is just foolish.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have attempted several times to militarily secure territory to which they were not entitled. And the net effect was that the area exclusive control for Israel today is greater that that in 1949. And the area of exclusive control for the Hostile Arab Palestinians is considerably smaller.

Forget your homegrown word-smithing to prove your point. Look at the hard reality.

And consider that the fact that there are HoAP that walk, talk and think like you, is one of the most compelling reasons that peace through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States has been totally lost --- wasted if you will --- on the HoAP.

Given the attitude of the HoAP and the ineptitude of the Government of Palestine, there does not seem to be much of an argument for the Israelis to adopt the concepts of the Arab Palestinian Fantasy World.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League.​

This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?

Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Mixed Armistice Commission helped craft the Agreements.

This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?

Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?

(COMMENT)

Not everyone in the world is as naive as you. They each understood that the title of each agreement was with the Government of Israel. The politicization of the use of the word "Palestine" is just some face saving grace for the Arab League Members. But at the top of each Agreement is the name of the parties to which the Armistice Applied. The Arab League and the Hostile Arabs say that they won every conflict surge. It does mean it is true.

(QUESTION)

Did you know that in 1967, Israel did not occupy any territory that was under the exclusive control of any Arab Palestinian entity or activity?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The UN Mixed Armistice Commission helped craft the Agreements.

This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?

Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?

(COMMENT)

Not everyone in the world is as naive as you. They each understood that the title of each agreement was with the Government of Israel. The politicization of the use of the word "Palestine" is just some face saving grace for the Arab League Members. But at the top of each Agreement is the name of the parties to which the Armistice Applied. The Arab League and the Hostile Arabs say that they won every conflict surge. It does mean it is true.

(QUESTION)

Did you know that in 1967, Israel did not occupy any territory that was under the exclusive control of any Arab Palestinian entity or activity?

Most Respectfully,
R

They each understood that the title of each agreement was with the Government of Israel.​

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh --- knock it off.

Wasn't you that just used the "Declarative Theory" to justify Palestinian Statehood?

I was referring to the term "into Israel." That is an Israeli say so thing. The UN called that territory Palestine in 1949.

(COMMENT)

You are just trying to play semantics with wording.

The fact is, territorial sovereignty is defined by that perimeter in which the government exercises exclusive control over.

While it is absolutely easy to see where Israel exercises exclusive control (defined territory); it is the security barriers that the Palestinians are constantly complaining about. But it is damn near impossible to identify any perimeter (defined territory) to which the Arab Palestinians hold exclusive jurisdiction.

Don't try to play word games when there is tangible and observable evidence at hand that establishes the point of contention. In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League. Well, that is just foolish.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have attempted several times to militarily secure territory to which they were not entitled. And the net effect was that the area exclusive control for Israel today is greater that that in 1949. And the area of exclusive control for the Hostile Arab Palestinians is considerably smaller.

Forget your homegrown word-smithing to prove your point. Look at the hard reality.

And consider that the fact that there are HoAP that walk, talk and think like you, is one of the most compelling reasons that peace through the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States has been totally lost --- wasted if you will --- on the HoAP.

Given the attitude of the HoAP and the ineptitude of the Government of Palestine, there does not seem to be much of an argument for the Israelis to adopt the concepts of the Arab Palestinian Fantasy World.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1949, you are trying to use the crafting of the Armistice Agreements that were worded in such a way as to not recognize the State of Israel by the Arab League.​

This makes no sense. Why, then, would Israel sign them?

Remember, Israeli propaganda says that the Arabs lost that war. Why should the losers craft the wording?

Thanks Tinnie.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Agreements us the title "Palestine" as it was defined in Paragraph 1 of the League of Nation "Palestine Order in Council." It was a regional nation; which does not lend itself to being a sovereign designator. There was never any intention by either the League of Nations or the United Nations that the term "Palestine" was to identify a independent government; other than that defined by the Order in Council.

Ideally, an Armistice Agreement, is followed-up by a Peace Treaty. In the case of Jordan, the following little tid-bit comes from the Official Website of the Hashemite Kingdom's History site.

The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”
​

You will notice, that without prejudice to the Inhabitance of the West Bank, the treaty (in Article 3 - International Boundary) establishes the international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a).

Similarly, the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt of March 26, 1979, says Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel; with Article II describing the "permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.[;" and further detailed in Annex II.

NOTICE: That in both Treaties, there is no mistake as to where the International boundaries are, or with whom the boundaries between. Neither Treaty mentions "Palestine" as an independent or sovereign entity.

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

(COMMENT)

First, the Armistice Agreements do not cover "International Borders." For that, you have to go to the Treaties.

Second, You are purposely misleading the reader into implying that the term "Palestine" means something more than the "territory to which the former Mandate applied" 9official short-titled to "Palestine")under the Order in Council.

Third, the territory inside the "Palestine's international borders" as something you can use in this argument. It certainly does not imply that it internationally recognizes the State of Palestine; merely the Mandate (UK) Government of Palestine.

Officially declared a British protectorate on December 18, 1914, Egypt was granted independence by the United Kingdom on January 28, 1922. The eastern boundary of Egypt was not explicitly delimited either at the time of independence or by the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923.1 By the terms of the treaty, Turkey renounced all rights and titles to territories lying outside of her immediate boundaries. Since independence Egypt has exercised sovereignty in Sinai. Following World War I the League of Nations approved a Palestine mandate to be administered by the United Kingdom for the part of the former Turkish Empire adjacent to Sinai. The line established by the Turco– Egyptian agreement of 1906 was afforded the status of an international boundary by both the United Kingdom and Egypt between the mandate of Palestine and Egyptian Sinai.

(RECOMMENDATION)

That you study and use the International Boundary portions of the respective Treaties with Egypt and Jordan; and not try to twist the language of extinct Armistice Agreements to fit your agenda. Between the two treaties, which encapsulate the Gaza Strip area and the West Bank Area, are discussed.

(Just to avoid a Arab-Palestinian Knit Picking Argument in the Future)

It should be noted that the entire boundary was shifted slightly eastward. A reason given for shifting the line eastward was based on historical precedence because boundary pillars had been located in Rafah since the Middle Ages.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy. “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”

“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,” said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV. “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

"For Israeli Occupation Forces, it is open season; a season that lasts all year round. There are no permits required, no restrictions levied. They are vested with weaponry funded by U.S. taxpayers, strapped with loaded machine guns and ready to “shoot to kill” every moving target. Children wielding stones and knives are squashed dead. Shoot first, ask later. Israeli forces discern a revolting pleasure in cruelty and suffering. They’ve become so desensitized to carrying out extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians, inflicting unbearable agony on others, and pulling the trigger without so much as a second thought as if they’re playing a video game. The killing of Palestinian civilians has become so commonplace, such a natural part of conversation. With a shrill disregard for human life, they’ve become immersed in a world that long ago stopped recognizing the value of human life and human dignity; a world that robbed them of their will and reduced them to machines aiming at moving objects in keffiyehs to be exterminated like prey. Aggressive, unhinged, implacable soldiers have successfully demonized and dehumanized themselves more than anyone else."

So who are the real "terrorists"?

'Under Fire' - Israel's artillery policies scrutinised | AOAV

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Sadly I couldn't find data on mortar rounds or tank shells, but I'll keep looking. Here's an account confirming mortars were used Breaking the Silence › Testimony - The artillery is constantly firing

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The "Cookie Monster" has that name, because by deed, that is what he does. He steals cookies.

how long they could lob rockets into Israel,
Can you prove that statement?

(COMMENT)

The Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other associates launch ≈ 4000 Rockets and Mortars into Israel. You are what you do.

There is no country in the world, with the capability to militarily respond, would allow a hostile population to launch 500 (let alone 4000) Rockets and Mortars into there country.

There is no definition on how many times you must allow the Palestinian Terrorist to attack before you can effectively respond. But I assure you, that if an aggressor would have fired 500 Rockets and Mortars at any of the NATO Members, if they were fired into China, or the Russian Federation --- there would be no Gaza Strip left when they were done and no residual HAMAS components to constitute any form of Girl Scout Troop, let alone a government.

BUT BACK TO THE QUESTION: You asked how long HAMAS could fire rockets and mortars into Israel before the world would condemn them... The answer is:

• For a duration longer that 8 months.
• In a quantity grater that 4000.
​

THEN the world community denied Israel the Opportunity to re-establish effective control over Gaza under Article 42 of the Hague Regulation and neutralize HAMAS as a threat to regional peace. So now, HAMAS is free to re-arm and conduct what Jihadist activity they can until it triggers another armed response by Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Most of these launches, however, are in response to Zionist provocations and pale into insignificance when you consider the IDF fired 34,000 unguided artillery shells into Gaza during "Protective Edge" each shell has a lethality radious of up to 300m and a CEP (Circular Error Probability) of between 1-300m

“Unguided artillery shells are a relic of a bygone day, but our report shows that if anything the IDF is more reliant on them now than they were almost a decade ago,” said Iain Overton, AOAV’s Director of Policy. “There’s no reason why Israel can’t stop using such damaging weaponry in populated areas.”

“In recent years the IDF has shifted away from using other devastating weapons like multiple rocket launchers or globally-banned cluster bombs,” said Robert Perkins, Senior Researcher at AOAV. “It doesn’t seem like this shift has extended to unguided heavy artillery, but these wide-area effect explosive weapons have no place in an urban populated area, where their effects cannot be controlled.” (War Crime)

Add to that the 800 tons of bombs dropped by the IAF...

"For Israeli Occupation Forces, it is open season; a season that lasts all year round. There are no permits required, no restrictions levied. They are vested with weaponry funded by U.S. taxpayers, strapped with loaded machine guns and ready to “shoot to kill” every moving target. Children wielding stones and knives are squashed dead. Shoot first, ask later. Israeli forces discern a revolting pleasure in cruelty and suffering. They’ve become so desensitized to carrying out extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians, inflicting unbearable agony on others, and pulling the trigger without so much as a second thought as if they’re playing a video game. The killing of Palestinian civilians has become so commonplace, such a natural part of conversation. With a shrill disregard for human life, they’ve become immersed in a world that long ago stopped recognizing the value of human life and human dignity; a world that robbed them of their will and reduced them to machines aiming at moving objects in keffiyehs to be exterminated like prey. Aggressive, unhinged, implacable soldiers have successfully demonized and dehumanized themselves more than anyone else."

So who are the real "terrorists"?

'Under Fire' - Israel's artillery policies scrutinised | AOAV

Israel dropped 800 tons of bombs on Gaza, the world didn’t blink an eye - American Herald Tribune

Sadly I couldn't find data on mortar rounds or tank shells, but I'll keep looking. Here's an account confirming mortars were used Breaking the Silence › Testimony - The artillery is constantly firing

The war against Islamic terrorism.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

At the marker 9:48/32:46, you will take note that: Rashid Khalidi specifically said that he would not discuss the events in the lead-up to the Operation. Thus, this does not, in any way, refute anything that was involved in my reply.

(COMMENT)

The "authority" cited here is Professor Rashid Khalidi, he has no international strategic security expertise; nor, has he service in either the Armed Forces of the Unites States or Israel. His claim to fame is that he was associated to the long since defunct U.S. Interreligious Committee for Peace in the Middle East, and was a Professor of Modern Arab Studies (Columbia). His inner action and hands-on experience in the MiddleEastern Conflict has been as a mediocre academician, a Beirut political activists in Beirut under the cover of a journalist during the first Lebanon War (Operation Peace for Galilee). His principle contribution during the Gulf War was as a news media outlet commentator.

With all due respect,--- Professor Rashid Khalidi is not an expert on the Military Strategy or the Customary and International Humanitarian Law to which he speaks. I do consider his opinion as valuable as any other, he is not a subject matter expert (SME) at all, not even in a closely related area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." THEN the actor --- dressed as a Physician proceeds to recommend a brand of medicine.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Armistice Agreements us the title "Palestine" as it was defined in Paragraph 1 of the League of Nation "Palestine Order in Council." It was a regional nation; which does not lend itself to being a sovereign designator. There was never any intention by either the League of Nations or the United Nations that the term "Palestine" was to identify a independent government; other than that defined by the Order in Council.

Ideally, an Armistice Agreement, is followed-up by a Peace Treaty. In the case of Jordan, the following little tid-bit comes from the Official Website of the Hashemite Kingdom's History site.

The Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty was signed on October 26, 1994, at the southern border crossing of Wadi ‘Araba. The treaty guaranteed Jordan the restoration of its occupied land (approximately 380 square kilometers), as well as an equitable share of water from the Yarmouk and Jordan rivers. Moreover, the treaty defined Jordan’s western borders clearly and conclusively for the first time, putting an end to the dangerous and false Zionist claim that “Jordan is Palestine.”
​

You will notice, that without prejudice to the Inhabitance of the West Bank, the treaty (in Article 3 - International Boundary) establishes the international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a).

Similarly, the Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt of March 26, 1979, says Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel; with Article II describing the "permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.[;" and further detailed in Annex II.

NOTICE: That in both Treaties, there is no mistake as to where the International boundaries are, or with whom the boundaries between. Neither Treaty mentions "Palestine" as an independent or sovereign entity.

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

(COMMENT)

First, the Armistice Agreements do not cover "International Borders." For that, you have to go to the Treaties.

Second, You are purposely misleading the reader into implying that the term "Palestine" means something more than the "territory to which the former Mandate applied" 9official short-titled to "Palestine")under the Order in Council.

Third, the territory inside the "Palestine's international borders" as something you can use in this argument. It certainly does not imply that it internationally recognizes the State of Palestine; merely the Mandate (UK) Government of Palestine.

Officially declared a British protectorate on December 18, 1914, Egypt was granted independence by the United Kingdom on January 28, 1922. The eastern boundary of Egypt was not explicitly delimited either at the time of independence or by the Treaty of Lausanne on July 24, 1923.1 By the terms of the treaty, Turkey renounced all rights and titles to territories lying outside of her immediate boundaries. Since independence Egypt has exercised sovereignty in Sinai. Following World War I the League of Nations approved a Palestine mandate to be administered by the United Kingdom for the part of the former Turkish Empire adjacent to Sinai. The line established by the Turco– Egyptian agreement of 1906 was afforded the status of an international boundary by both the United Kingdom and Egypt between the mandate of Palestine and Egyptian Sinai.

(RECOMMENDATION)

That you study and use the International Boundary portions of the respective Treaties with Egypt and Jordan; and not try to twist the language of extinct Armistice Agreements to fit your agenda. Between the two treaties, which encapsulate the Gaza Strip area and the West Bank Area, are discussed.

(Just to avoid a Arab-Palestinian Knit Picking Argument in the Future)

It should be noted that the entire boundary was shifted slightly eastward. A reason given for shifting the line eastward was based on historical precedence because boundary pillars had been located in Rafah since the Middle Ages.​

Most Respectfully,
R

What in all that refutes my post?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your implications are incorrect.

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

What in all that refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

Your implication that the establishment of the Armistice Line along the FEBA is a agreement that was not intended to address borders, nor did address borders. The intention and objective of the Armistice Agreement was to open a "ceasefire."

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Armistice Agreement can only be establish between states. And the Armistice agreements show Israel as a party to the Agreement: NOT Palestine.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine in question was defined as the "territory under which the Mandate applied." The survey that established the boundaries between the various Mandates were put together by the Boundary Commission. Yes the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, not a sovereign state. You do this all the time. You spread misinformation by suggesting that the Palestine Mentioned, was some none- existent sovereign state with some assigned territorial control. It was not.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. It was called "Palestine" according to the Palestine Order in Council. The international boundaries (defined territory) of which you speak were consistent with the agreements of the Allied Powers to determine.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. The defined territory of Israel was that territory for which Israel maintained and enforced exclusive sovereign control. No external power had control.

Thus State sovereignty meant a State’s independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers on the one hand and the State’s exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and inhabitants on the other. The legitimacy of the sovereign State was considered to be no longer religious but secular, its ratio essendi being self-assertion and survival.
SOURCE: Sovereignty and International Law by MIYOSHI Masahiro, Professor Emeritus of International Law Aichi University, Japan
NOTE: the term "ratio essendi" means: "That by reason of which something exists.."

• During the 17th and the 18th centuries, State sovereignty meant that a State‟s autonomy and independence from and lawful and authorized impermeability with regard to foreign powers on the one part and State‟s exclusive control, jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and population on the other. The authenticity of the sovereign states was considered to be no longer spiritual and religious but worldly secular. In simpler words, State Sovereignty connotes the basic international legal status of a state. The theory of Sovereign equality of states is a well recognized principle of international law. Such a principle signifies that:

(a) States are judicially equal;
(b) each State enjoys the rights intrinsic in full sovereignty;
(c) each State has the duty to respect the character of other States.
​

• State sovereignty is a significant ground for the organization and expansion of international relations. The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) pointed out that „Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence,‟ which „gives the right to a State to exercise its State functions within certain territory.‟

• The principle of sovereign equality of States is a well established principle of international law.
SOURCE: Pages 10 and 11; Sovereignty and Integrity ICJ, supra

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your implications are incorrect.

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

What in all that refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

Your implication that the establishment of the Armistice Line along the FEBA is a agreement that was not intended to address borders, nor did address borders. The intention and objective of the Armistice Agreement was to open a "ceasefire."

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Armistice Agreement can only be establish between states. And the Armistice agreements show Israel as a party to the Agreement: NOT Palestine.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine in question was defined as the "territory under which the Mandate applied." The survey that established the boundaries between the various Mandates were put together by the Boundary Commission. Yes the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, not a sovereign state. You do this all the time. You spread misinformation by suggesting that the Palestine Mentioned, was some none- existent sovereign state with some assigned territorial control. It was not.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. It was called "Palestine" according to the Palestine Order in Council. The international boundaries (defined territory) of which you speak were consistent with the agreements of the Allied Powers to determine.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. The defined territory of Israel was that territory for which Israel maintained and enforced exclusive sovereign control. No external power had control.

Thus State sovereignty meant a State’s independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers on the one hand and the State’s exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and inhabitants on the other. The legitimacy of the sovereign State was considered to be no longer religious but secular, its ratio essendi being self-assertion and survival.
SOURCE: Sovereignty and International Law by MIYOSHI Masahiro, Professor Emeritus of International Law Aichi University, Japan
NOTE: the term "ratio essendi" means: "That by reason of which something exists.."

• During the 17th and the 18th centuries, State sovereignty meant that a State‟s autonomy and independence from and lawful and authorized impermeability with regard to foreign powers on the one part and State‟s exclusive control, jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and population on the other. The authenticity of the sovereign states was considered to be no longer spiritual and religious but worldly secular. In simpler words, State Sovereignty connotes the basic international legal status of a state. The theory of Sovereign equality of states is a well recognized principle of international law. Such a principle signifies that:

(a) States are judicially equal;
(b) each State enjoys the rights intrinsic in full sovereignty;
(c) each State has the duty to respect the character of other States.
​

• State sovereignty is a significant ground for the organization and expansion of international relations. The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) pointed out that „Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence,‟ which „gives the right to a State to exercise its State functions within certain territory.‟

• The principle of sovereign equality of States is a well established principle of international law.
SOURCE: Pages 10 and 11; Sovereignty and Integrity ICJ, supra

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your implications are incorrect.

All of the agreements were titled like: Egyptian Israeli, etc.. The agreements were about Egyptian and Israeli forces.

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

The Israeli government signed these agreements.

What in all that refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

Your implication that the establishment of the Armistice Line along the FEBA is a agreement that was not intended to address borders, nor did address borders. The intention and objective of the Armistice Agreement was to open a "ceasefire."

Palestine was mentioned many times in the agreements. A place called Israel was not mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Nonsense. The Armistice Agreement can only be establish between states. And the Armistice agreements show Israel as a party to the Agreement: NOT Palestine.

Palestine's international borders were mentioned. No borders were mentioned for Israel.

(COMMENT)

The Palestine in question was defined as the "territory under which the Mandate applied." The survey that established the boundaries between the various Mandates were put together by the Boundary Commission. Yes the Government of Palestine was the Mandatory, not a sovereign state. You do this all the time. You spread misinformation by suggesting that the Palestine Mentioned, was some none- existent sovereign state with some assigned territorial control. It was not.

Land inside Palestine's international borders was called Palestine even if it was under Israeli military control.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. It was called "Palestine" according to the Palestine Order in Council. The international boundaries (defined territory) of which you speak were consistent with the agreements of the Allied Powers to determine.

This was after the end of the LoN, after the Mandate left Palestine, after resolution 181, after the 1948 war, and after the foreigners declared Israel's independence without a defined territory.

(COMMENT)

Wrong again. The defined territory of Israel was that territory for which Israel maintained and enforced exclusive sovereign control. No external power had control.

Thus State sovereignty meant a State’s independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers on the one hand and the State’s exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and inhabitants on the other. The legitimacy of the sovereign State was considered to be no longer religious but secular, its ratio essendi being self-assertion and survival.
SOURCE: Sovereignty and International Law by MIYOSHI Masahiro, Professor Emeritus of International Law Aichi University, Japan
NOTE: the term "ratio essendi" means: "That by reason of which something exists.."

• During the 17th and the 18th centuries, State sovereignty meant that a State‟s autonomy and independence from and lawful and authorized impermeability with regard to foreign powers on the one part and State‟s exclusive control, jurisdiction and supremacy over its territory and population on the other. The authenticity of the sovereign states was considered to be no longer spiritual and religious but worldly secular. In simpler words, State Sovereignty connotes the basic international legal status of a state. The theory of Sovereign equality of states is a well recognized principle of international law. Such a principle signifies that:

(a) States are judicially equal;
(b) each State enjoys the rights intrinsic in full sovereignty;
(c) each State has the duty to respect the character of other States.
​

• State sovereignty is a significant ground for the organization and expansion of international relations. The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) pointed out that „Sovereignty in the relations between States signifies independence,‟ which „gives the right to a State to exercise its State functions within certain territory.‟

• The principle of sovereign equality of States is a well established principle of international law.
SOURCE: Pages 10 and 11; Sovereignty and Integrity ICJ, supra

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.

You should learn to focus on what was written out for you. Sidestepping with your silly one-liners makes you appear quite befuddled.

 

[Shusha]

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.

You keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty", if such a thing indeed exists in law, would apply to BOTH peoples and not just the one.

You also keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty" is not actual sovereignty.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend "Shusha" has it correct. The "right to (Fill In the Blank)" is a theoretical construct of the mind. Just because you believe you have a "right" to something today, does not mean that the "right" always existed; and it does not mean that the "right" will always exist now and into the future. A theoretical construct does not actually confers anything of a tangible nature.

The evolution that Kantorowicz described is formative, for sovereignty is a signature feature of modern politics. Some scholars have doubted whether a stable, essential notion of sovereignty exists. But there is in fact a definition that captures what sovereignty came to mean in early modern Europe and of which most subsequent definitions are a variant: supreme authority within a territory. This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.
SOURCE: Second Paragraph in Section ---1. A Definition of Sovereignty --- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
​

You keep confusing military control (occupation) with the right to sovereignty.

You keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty", if such a thing indeed exists in law, would apply to BOTH peoples and not just the one.

You also keep forgetting that the "right to sovereignty" is not actual sovereignty.

(COMMENT)

The "right to sovereignty" is a dilemma. It pits the turn of the century (binding only in so far as the UN Charter supports it in Chapter I) concept (A/RES/50/172 27 February 1996) against the reality reality of real events.

1. Reiterates that, by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter;

----------------------------- VERSUS -----------------------------​

6. Condemns any act of armed aggression or threat or use of force against peoples, their elected Governments or their legitimate leaders;

7. Reaffirms that all countries have the obligation under the Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development;
​

Under these human constructs, the people of Israel have the right to freely, and without external interference, determine their political status; --- and the Arab Palestinian are condemned for any acts of jihad or armed struggle --- and the use of force, intimidation or coercion against the People of Israelis, their elected Government and legitimate leaders. Having this "right" does not prevent the necessity for the People of Israel from having to defend itself every single day from attempting to use force against the Israeli People to alter government policy and prevent further acts of aggression. This previous history of aggression includes activities like that of the 1948 Arab League invasion, the staging and deployment of heavily armed Arab forces on the border, and the closure of the Titan Straits in 1967, and surprise attack by Arab League forces in 1973.

Most Respectfully,
R