Destroy bds and its supporters

[browsing deer]

The BSD movement has the Israelis hot and bothered is a very tiny group with a ton of cash. The Israelis regard any group that wants to kill them, no matter how tiny, as a very real threat. The Nazis, after all, had only 6 members before hitler joined up.

There world wide facebook presence is only 150,000 after years of recruitment, and a large part of that is fake. They had success on college campuses because students ignore college groups. But when the BDS scores successes like the did on UCLA a year ago, they galvanize opposition. This year the anti bds on UCLA scored 85%

The BDS worries the Israelis, as it should. It is a group of wormy evil we need to watch out for. But when folks wake up to them, they get smashed.

In England their representative in Parliament won a by election three years ago in a largely arab constituency. People there got an idea what he actually was and in the election last month he polled 4th. It shows the importance of paying attention

She got 55% in a 6 person race, voting out the incumbent. I think Georgeous George lost his deposit. I don't like labor candidates, but I like that result..

He was a moron and the people saw through him that is why he was voted out. And it was a Pakistani/b
Bangladeshi area and they turned against him and voted in one of their own.

If you are going to make comments about t5he UK get your facts right first. Start with Galloway being an Islamic convert and extremist that was kicked out of parliament for breaching the rules too many times. Now he cant make anti semitic racist comments without being arrested and charged

 

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

BTW, The U.S makes its own decisions.

Should actually read....

BTW, The U.S makes its own BAD decisions.

The US does not have a good track record as far as foreign policy is concerned does it...

Yet continues to make the same mistakes time and again...

Can that be due to constantly inept politicians?

Or perhaps something more sinister?

Personally, I don't think we will ever know the true answer. Too many potential reasons, too many conspiracy theories.

What's your take ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

That is not what the vote was about.

Voting to place a European population on another continent and removing the people living there is a good thing?

(COMMENT)

The original intent was to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,.

The Principal Allied Powers, the Powers to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Government surrender to, have agreed, that one of the principle purposes of the Mandate was the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This was purpose was entrusted to a Mandatory, and given the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

In the end, General Assembly 181 (II) --- Future governments of Palestine, established the "Step Preparatory to Independence." The Arab Palestinian rejected the plan and declined to participate.

Part II
Boundaries
B. THE JEWISH STATE​

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
​

Most respectfully,
R

The original intent was to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,.​

And **** the natives.

A stupid move that has caused a hundred years (and counting) war.

The natives just so happened to be Jews, or did you forget that little fact

Not at all. About 5% of the natives were Jews. That does not negate the rights of the other 95%.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I guess under this definition, I am in trouble. I am not Jewish. I'm a non-Practicing Roman Catholic.

I guess I am just old fashioned, I do not support the dispossession of homes from people that have been living there for several generations. I do not support the killing of women and children by Europeans just because the women and children are not European.

I don't like you, Rocco, consider non-Jews, especially women and children, as less than human whose murder by the thousands by Jews is acceptable.

(COMMENT)

The people of Israel are multi-ethic, and multi-cultural; very diverse. My understanding is that in 2014, approximately three-quarters of the total Jewish population were born in Israel.

Most people would prefer that in combat, there were no accidental or collateral damage and casualties. But that is a bit outside the reality of war and conflict. Anytime one-side receives hostile fire from areas and locations that are densely populated by hostile forces intentionally operating in such proximity to take advantage of the immunity from a military response. Never made an effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Israeli military objectives (from the vicinity of targets of likely Israeli attacks).

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.

The fixation you have on the fact that the vast majority of the endangered Jewish settlers encouraged to immigrate for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home where from "Europe" --- is representative of the Arab Palestinian behaviorally obsessed with an attachment to the idea that the territorial sovereignty was exclusively theirs. Which was not the case then, and had not been the case for 8 centuries or more. The territory called Palestine, set within such boundaries as were be fixed by the Principle Allied Powers, were surrendered including the —Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V (Article 16 --- Armistice of Mudros). And there was Articles 16 and 27 --- Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

ARTICLE 27 --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.​

FINALLY:

In your sound bite, you used the term: Murder --- the intentional killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, as implied against Israel. That is a far cry and exceptionally different from Criminal Negligence --- failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome. In the case of HAMAS, which showed a wanton disregard for customary law and human life by intentionally locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas (Customary IHL Rule 23); and made no effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives (Customary IHL Rule 24).

Most Respectfully,
R

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.​

Right out of Israel's playbook.

Good boy.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

That is not what the vote was about.

Voting to place a European population on another continent and removing the people living there is a good thing?

(COMMENT)

The original intent was to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,.

The Principal Allied Powers, the Powers to which the Ottoman Empire and Turkish Government surrender to, have agreed, that one of the principle purposes of the Mandate was the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. This was purpose was entrusted to a Mandatory, and given the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them.

In the end, General Assembly 181 (II) --- Future governments of Palestine, established the "Step Preparatory to Independence." The Arab Palestinian rejected the plan and declined to participate.

Part II
Boundaries
B. THE JEWISH STATE​

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.
​

Most respectfully,
R

The original intent was to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,.​

And **** the natives.

A stupid move that has caused a hundred years (and counting) war.

The natives just so happened to be Jews, or did you forget that little fact

Not at all. About 5% of the natives were Jews. That does not negate the rights of the other 95%.

Which led to them receiving 78% of Palestine for their national home under a Saudi king. This left the poorest land that no one wanted to the Jews of the world to make their national home as promised and agreed with the then senior muslim leader. The rights of the 95% were never negated under the Mandate which is what the nation of Israel was declared under, and if you read the Jewish declaration of independence they call on the arab muslims to live in peace as full Israeli citizens. After leaving they cant decide that they now want a piece of the cake after all.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

What does that have to do with the Palestinians declaration of "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" in their attacks of a sovereign nation.

When are the Palestinians going to abide by
All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

Until they do then they should be met with the same "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" to force them into stopping the violence.

 

[JFish123]

BDS is anti Semitic. Period


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I guess under this definition, I am in trouble. I am not Jewish. I'm a non-Practicing Roman Catholic.

I guess I am just old fashioned, I do not support the dispossession of homes from people that have been living there for several generations. I do not support the killing of women and children by Europeans just because the women and children are not European.

I don't like you, Rocco, consider non-Jews, especially women and children, as less than human whose murder by the thousands by Jews is acceptable.

(COMMENT)

The people of Israel are multi-ethic, and multi-cultural; very diverse. My understanding is that in 2014, approximately three-quarters of the total Jewish population were born in Israel.

Most people would prefer that in combat, there were no accidental or collateral damage and casualties. But that is a bit outside the reality of war and conflict. Anytime one-side receives hostile fire from areas and locations that are densely populated by hostile forces intentionally operating in such proximity to take advantage of the immunity from a military response. Never made an effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Israeli military objectives (from the vicinity of targets of likely Israeli attacks).

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.

The fixation you have on the fact that the vast majority of the endangered Jewish settlers encouraged to immigrate for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home where from "Europe" --- is representative of the Arab Palestinian behaviorally obsessed with an attachment to the idea that the territorial sovereignty was exclusively theirs. Which was not the case then, and had not been the case for 8 centuries or more. The territory called Palestine, set within such boundaries as were be fixed by the Principle Allied Powers, were surrendered including the —Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V (Article 16 --- Armistice of Mudros). And there was Articles 16 and 27 --- Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

ARTICLE 27 --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.​

FINALLY:

In your sound bite, you used the term: Murder --- the intentional killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, as implied against Israel. That is a far cry and exceptionally different from Criminal Negligence --- failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome. In the case of HAMAS, which showed a wanton disregard for customary law and human life by intentionally locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas (Customary IHL Rule 23); and made no effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives (Customary IHL Rule 24).

Most Respectfully,
R

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.​

Right out of Israel's playbook.

Good boy.

So you are saying the worlds media are wrong, along with the NGO's and the UN. And that the findings of the ICC/ICJ were also wrong when they detailed the war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out by the Palestinians last summer

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

I guess under this definition, I am in trouble. I am not Jewish. I'm a non-Practicing Roman Catholic.

I guess I am just old fashioned, I do not support the dispossession of homes from people that have been living there for several generations. I do not support the killing of women and children by Europeans just because the women and children are not European.

I don't like you, Rocco, consider non-Jews, especially women and children, as less than human whose murder by the thousands by Jews is acceptable.

(COMMENT)

The people of Israel are multi-ethic, and multi-cultural; very diverse. My understanding is that in 2014, approximately three-quarters of the total Jewish population were born in Israel.

Most people would prefer that in combat, there were no accidental or collateral damage and casualties. But that is a bit outside the reality of war and conflict. Anytime one-side receives hostile fire from areas and locations that are densely populated by hostile forces intentionally operating in such proximity to take advantage of the immunity from a military response. Never made an effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of Israeli military objectives (from the vicinity of targets of likely Israeli attacks).

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.

The fixation you have on the fact that the vast majority of the endangered Jewish settlers encouraged to immigrate for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home where from "Europe" --- is representative of the Arab Palestinian behaviorally obsessed with an attachment to the idea that the territorial sovereignty was exclusively theirs. Which was not the case then, and had not been the case for 8 centuries or more. The territory called Palestine, set within such boundaries as were be fixed by the Principle Allied Powers, were surrendered including the —Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V (Article 16 --- Armistice of Mudros). And there was Articles 16 and 27 --- Treaty of Lausanne:

ARTICLE I6. --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

ARTICLE 27 --- TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.​

FINALLY:

In your sound bite, you used the term: Murder --- the intentional killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, as implied against Israel. That is a far cry and exceptionally different from Criminal Negligence --- failure to use reasonable care to avoid consequences that threaten or harm the safety of the public and that are the foreseeable outcome. In the case of HAMAS, which showed a wanton disregard for customary law and human life by intentionally locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas (Customary IHL Rule 23); and made no effort to remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives (Customary IHL Rule 24).

Most Respectfully,
R

It was not a case of the Israelis having no respect for the innocent population, but that HAMAS forces operating in the densely populated areas had nor care for the vulnerable; instead intentionally positioning there high value targets and launch positions such that their own population was placed in jeopardy.​

Right out of Israel's playbook.

Good boy.

So you are saying the worlds media are wrong, along with the NGO's and the UN. And that the findings of the ICC/ICJ were also wrong when they detailed the war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out by the Palestinians last summer

You are being vague. Who says what and based on what evidence?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinians are the defenders not the aggressors. How does your post fit that scenario?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't see the Arab-Palestinians as the defenders at all.

The threat of continuous conflict was made by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) in early 1948.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinians are the defenders not the aggressors. How does your post fit that scenario?

(COMMENT)

It does not matter when you adjust the timeframe to. The AHC essentially said:

• The Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations.
• The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “

The AHC essentially threaten:

• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.

The Arab Palestinian (Enemy Population in post-WWI), disagreed with the decisions and outcomes in the post-War surrendered territory of the Ottoman Empire. In not getting what they wanted, by not cooperating with the Mandatory over the territory, and in rejecting nearly every compromise/overture the Mandatory made, the Arab-Palestinian opened a conflict.

The Jewish were encouraged to immigrate by the Government Palestine (the Mandatory). Nothing in the Definition of Aggression, and in particular Article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination (exercised by the Jewish in May 1948), freedom and independence (having completed the steps preparatory to Independence), as derived from the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinians are the defenders not the aggressors. How does your post fit that scenario?

Then if Israel is the aggressor the Palestinians have a Mobile Defense, that is, running from the IDF. Glad to clear that up for you, Tinbore.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't see the Arab-Palestinians as the defenders at all.

The threat of continuous conflict was made by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) in early 1948.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinians are the defenders not the aggressors. How does your post fit that scenario?

(COMMENT)

It does not matter when you adjust the timeframe to. The AHC essentially said:

• The Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations.
• The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “

The AHC essentially threaten:

• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.

The Arab Palestinian (Enemy Population in post-WWI), disagreed with the decisions and outcomes in the post-War surrendered territory of the Ottoman Empire. In not getting what they wanted, by not cooperating with the Mandatory over the territory, and in rejecting nearly every compromise/overture the Mandatory made, the Arab-Palestinian opened a conflict.

The Jewish were encouraged to immigrate by the Government Palestine (the Mandatory). Nothing in the Definition of Aggression, and in particular Article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination (exercised by the Jewish in May 1948), freedom and independence (having completed the steps preparatory to Independence), as derived from the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't see the Arab-Palestinians as the defenders at all.​

The Palestinians are at home in their own country fighting with foreigners. That is defensive.

You don't make any sense.

 

[Roudy]

Destroy Israel

Bomb Mecca.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't see the Arab-Palestinians as the defenders at all.

The threat of continuous conflict was made by the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) in early 1948.

P F Tinmore, et al,

The State of Israel holds member status in the UN. (The UN accorded Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations.)

Chapter VII --- Article 51 --- UN Charter

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
​

Phoenall, et al,

Normally, I would say that two "wrongs" don't make a "right."

If they target children and use illegal weapons then it is terrorism and they can be pounded into dust for employing such methods.

(COMMENT)

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity, compel compliance in refraining from acts of war, to contain future activity, or to protect the Israeli sovereignty and citizenry from harm. The key is the assessment and comparison of the relationship between: The concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated --- versus --- incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. Remembering that "“utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts."

Most Respectfully,
R

But if the Palestinian standard is by "ALL NECESSARY MEANS AT THEIR DISPOSAL" --- then --- Israel should use that amount of force necessary to mitigate a HAMAS hostile activity,...​

No they shouldn't.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

The 1514 (XV) Resolution does not nullify the inherent right to self-defense when an aggressor fires on and attacks a member nation.

The Charter has legal standing; equivalent to a treaty. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 United Nations and Decolonization, is a written motion that cannot progress into a law (inherently and explicitly non-binding). It records the sense of the General Assembly.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but the Palestinians are the defenders not the aggressors. How does your post fit that scenario?

(COMMENT)

It does not matter when you adjust the timeframe to. The AHC essentially said:

• The Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom.
• They consider that imposing international alien immigrants on their country by force is nothing but an act of aggression and invasion, whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations.
• The creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression, it is something with no precedent in history. It is an act of wiping out the existence of an Arab country, violating its integrity, subjecting its land and people to foreign Jewish domination. “

The AHC essentially threaten:

• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
• The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.

The Arab Palestinian (Enemy Population in post-WWI), disagreed with the decisions and outcomes in the post-War surrendered territory of the Ottoman Empire. In not getting what they wanted, by not cooperating with the Mandatory over the territory, and in rejecting nearly every compromise/overture the Mandatory made, the Arab-Palestinian opened a conflict.

The Jewish were encouraged to immigrate by the Government Palestine (the Mandatory). Nothing in the Definition of Aggression, and in particular Article 3, could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination (exercised by the Jewish in May 1948), freedom and independence (having completed the steps preparatory to Independence), as derived from the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine rightfully refused to accept the colonization (by Europeans) of the land they lived on in contravention of the League of Nations Charter.

The most peculiar thing about the Balfour Declaration is that on the date of issuance, Palestine was still under Ottoman rule.

In any case the this pretty much sums it up regardless of the convoluted denials of the European colonial powers.

UNITED
NATIONS
A

• 
  General Assembly

A/364/Add.2 PV.38
22 July 1947
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE SECOND SESSION OF
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY



SUPPLEMENT NO. 11

-------



UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE

------



REPORT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

VOLUME III

ORAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT PUBLIC MEETING



Lake Success, New York​

"The origin of Palestine's troubles is to be found in two documents, which are null and valueless, although it is upon them that Zionist claims are based: the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. In the first of these documents, the British Government undertook to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish National Home, thereby violating the principle of self-determination and the rules of international law. At the time when the undertaking was given, Great Britain had no legal relations with Palestine, which then formed part of the Ottoman Empire. Further, the Balfour Declaration violates the undertakings given by the British Government concerning the Arabs in the letters exchanged between Sherif Hussein and Sir Henry MacMahon, recognizing Arab independence within boundaries which included Palestine. Finally, the Balfour Declaration contravened the 1918 Declaration which stated that the British Army was entering Palestine not as a conquering but as a liberating army.

As for the Mandate, it contains the same defects as the Balfour Declaration. It also violates Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. Whereas the Covenant states that the purpose of the Mandate is to serve the interests of the mandated territory and requires the Mandatory to lead it towards independence, the text of the Palestine Mandate envisages placing Palestine under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home."

A 364 Add.2 PV.38 of 22 July 1947

 

[Indofred]

UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PALESTINE

Palestine..I did exist before Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yah, you keep getting this wrong.

[R

I don't see the Arab-Palestinians as the defenders at all.​

The Palestinians are at home in their own country fighting with foreigners. That is defensive.

You don't make any sense.[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

As was stated in Posting #120, it may have been their home, but was not their sovereignty.

In addition to the invasion by the by all the surrounding Islamic State, the Arab-Palestinian insurgency consisting of the Holy War Army (HWA) and the The Arab Liberation Army (ALA). The HWA, which had a Waffen SS Officer as a principle leader, Hasan Salama (Co-founder). The ALA was led by a former Captain (awarded the Majidi Medal, and the Iron Cross 2dClass) in the 12th Ottoman Corps (WWI) and awarded the rank of a Colonel of the Wehrmacht.

The Ottoman Empire did not surrender to the Arab Palestinians (on the side of the German Army in both World Wars), nor did the Turkish Government as the Ottoman successor. They surrendered to the Allied Powers. And it was the Allied Powers that wrote the League of Nations Charter, convened the San Remo Convention, wrote the Mandate for Palestine and the Palestine Order in Council.

The Provisional Government of the State of Israel exercised the right of self-determination; and complete the "Step Preparatory to Independence" as suggested by the General Assembly. The right of self-determination is not exclusive to the Arab Palestinian.

Most Respectfully,
R