Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

[Billo_Really]

I still need a law that explains why a Palestinian would be arrested for speaking to a settler. I doubt whether there is a law. For instance if a settler goes to a Palestinian store is the cashier there not allowed to speak to the settler (the customer) for fear of arrest.

What you're saying makes sense. However, I can't answer that, because I just don't know.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I still need a law that explains why a Palestinian would be arrested for speaking to a settler. I doubt whether there is a law. For instance if a settler goes to a Palestinian store is the cashier there not allowed to speak to the settler (the customer) for fear of arrest.

What you're saying makes sense. However, I can't answer that, because I just don't know.

Well then! It's not true.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well then! It's not true.

Not according to the people who live there and have experienced this.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Well then! It's not true.

Not according to the people who live there and have experienced this.

If I were a settler, went to the grocery store nearby, which is owned by Palestinians, and the cashier asked me how my husband and children are, and I said they are doing good thanks, and we wished each other a nice day (that is typical of how Jews and Palestinians treat each other in stores you know, then no law was broken. I think you should take the claims that Palestinians are arrested for speaking to Jews with a pinch of salt.

Have a nice day.

 

[Billo_Really]

If I were a settler, went to the grocery store nearby, which is owned by Palestinians, and the cashier asked me how my husband and children are, and I said they are doing good thanks, and we wished each other a nice day (that is typical of how Jews and Palestinians treat each other in stores you know, then no law was broken. I think you should take the claims that Palestinians are arrested for speaking to Jews with a pinch of salt.

Have a nice day.

I don't think that was the situation in the article.

I got the impression that if a Palestinian resident walked up to an Israeli settler on the street in public in full view of everyone around, including the Israeli guard tower nearby, than that person would run the risk of being arrested.

What's done in private, is private. What's done in public, is subject to recriminations.

Since it's morning here, I guess I should say, "Have a nice night".

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.

I'm saying millions of non-Jews who are subject to Israeli military laws have no voice in selecting those Jews or non-Jews who write the laws.

(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.

I'm saying millions of non-Jews who are subject to Israeli military laws have no voice in selecting those Jews or non-Jews who write the laws.

(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

An occupational force, is not a "non-combatant".

And the occupied territories in which the arabs live, is not a foreign state.

It is to the Israeli's; it's not to the Palestinian's.

 

[georgephillip]

What are you complaining about ??? That Israeli citizens are now allowed to vote ??

Is there something wrong with that ?

There's something wrong with the fact there is no Israeli nationality in Israel.
That's what I'm complaining about; why aren't you?

Sure there is. Citizens of Israel are 'Israelis' . What's so hard to understand ?

1948.
The Jewish state of Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality, preferring to make an unusual distinction where all Israelis qualify as "citizens of Israel"; however, the state itself was defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation" which included not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but another seven million Jews around the planet.

Possibly this duplicity explains how the special status of Jewish nationality undermines the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel?

Lawsuit challenges Israel's discriminatory citizenship definition | The Electronic Intifada

 

[Kondor3]

There's something wrong with the fact there is no Israeli nationality in Israel.
That's what I'm complaining about; why aren't you?

Sure there is. Citizens of Israel are 'Israelis' . What's so hard to understand ?

1948.
The Jewish state of Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality, preferring to make an unusual distinction where all Israelis qualify as "citizens of Israel"; however, the state itself was defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation" which included not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but another seven million Jews around the planet.

Possibly this duplicity explains how the special status of Jewish nationality undermines the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel?

Lawsuit challenges Israel's discriminatory citizenship definition | The Electronic Intifada

Dream on.

No Israeli court is going to redefine ownership of the Israeli State.

It's their country now, and they can bloody-well do what they want with it.

Including the crafting and interpreting of laws to enforce their will.

Israel is intended as a home for the Jews.

That's the way it's going to stay.

All the court challenges in the world aren't going to change that.

Hell, even logic isn't going to change that.

The Jews have said: "This is ours" - and they intend to keep it that way.

Sounds like the Muslim-Arabs of the region don't much care for Dhimmitude.

The kind of second-class citizenship that the Muslims have been serving-up for Jews, for centuries.

What goes around comes around.

And now it's the Arab's turn in the barrel.

 

[georgephillip]

Sure there is. Citizens of Israel are 'Israelis' . What's so hard to understand ?

1948.
The Jewish state of Israel refused to recognize an Israeli nationality, preferring to make an unusual distinction where all Israelis qualify as "citizens of Israel"; however, the state itself was defined as belonging to the "Jewish nation" which included not only the 5.6 million Israeli Jews but another seven million Jews around the planet.

Possibly this duplicity explains how the special status of Jewish nationality undermines the citizenship rights of non-Jews in Israel?

Lawsuit challenges Israel's discriminatory citizenship definition | The Electronic Intifada

Dream on.

No Israeli court is going to redefine ownership of the Israeli State.

It's their country now, and they can bloody-well do what they want with it.

Including the crafting and interpreting of laws to enforce their will.

Israel is intended as a home for the Jews.

That's the way it's going to stay.

All the court challenges in the world aren't going to change that.

Hell, even logic isn't going to change that.

The Jews have said: "This is ours" - and they intend to keep it that way.

Sounds like the Muslim-Arabs of the region don't much care for Dhimmitude.

The kind of second-class citizenship that the Muslims have been serving-up for Jews, for centuries.

What goes around comes around.

And now it's the Arab's turn in the barrel.

Who do you imagine "owns" the Israeli state?
Rich Jews in Chicago?
"Their country" does not "bloody well" include the West Bank and Gaza.
Millions of people living between the River and the sea are currently denied their fundamental human right of self-determination because Jews value their nation more than democracy.
**** that and the feral fascists who support it.
Jews will choose between apartheid or democracy or vanish back into their sewers.
Tough choice?
Tough shit!

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.

I'm saying millions of non-Jews who are subject to Israeli military laws have no voice in selecting those Jews or non-Jews who write the laws.

(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

First tell me what "foreign state" you're referring to?
Zionists began their creeping annexation of Palestine over one hundred years ago, and apparently you've chosen to support their hostilities and condemn their victims. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza are not hostile non-combatants they are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Section III. Occupied territories[edit]
Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kondor3]

"...Who do you imagine "owns" the Israeli state?..."

The question of ownership of the State was raised in the article YOU cited. Go back and re-read your own article.

"...Their country" does not 'bloody well' include the West Bank and Gaza..."

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to stop them.

"...Millions of people living between the River and the sea are currently denied their fundamental human right of self-determination because Jews value their nation more than democracy..."

Millions of people living in the West Bank and Gaza are denied Israeli citizenship because they chose to stand alongside the invading Arab armies of 1948, and created and supported militias which engaged in suicide-bombing and rocketry campaigns against innocent Israeli civilian populations; thereby disqualified themselves forevermore as citizens of Israel.

If they don't like it, they can always pack-up and leave.

"...**** that and the feral fascists who support it..."

You may take that up directly with the Israeli government.

"...Jews will choose between apartheid or democracy..."

There is no Apartheid going on there.

Merely a walling-off of barbarians and crazies so as to minimize civilian casualties.

The barbarians and crazies had been given plenty of chances to come to a sane, rational agreement with Israel, before Israel eventually lost interest and blocked the possibility.

Also, Israel is a highly democratic nation.

Insofar as its own citizens are concerned.

Far more democratic than most of the train-wreck Arab Republics and Kingdoms nearby.

"...or vanish back into their sewers..."

So, the Jews originated ('...back into...') in the sewers, did they?

Thank you for the reinforcing example of your own bigotry.

"...Tough choice? Tough shit!"

I suggest you take-up your 'Tough' talk with the Israel Defense Force.

The Israelis face no such choice.

Except, perhaps, in your frenzied imagination.

 

[Billo_Really]

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Hitler felt the same way about Poland and we all know what happened to him.

 

[Moonglow]

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay​

October 24, 2012
By David Solway

---

For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the world’s major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the world’s leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstances—while reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.

For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

It's the Arabs you must convince.

 

[Moonglow]

It does if the Israelis SAY it does.

Hitler felt the same way about Poland and we all know what happened to him.

He got married and killed himself. See what happens when you get married!

 

[Moonglow]

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.

I'm saying millions of non-Jews who are subject to Israeli military laws have no voice in selecting those Jews or non-Jews who write the laws.

(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

First tell me what "foreign state" you're referring to?
Zionists began their creeping annexation of Palestine over one hundred years ago, and apparently you've chosen to support their hostilities and condemn their victims. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza are not hostile non-combatants they are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Section III. Occupied territories[edit]
Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49)."

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

Fourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoils of war. You attack me, I take your land and keep it. It has happened so many times in human history that it is a surprise to see some one that does not know it.

 

[Peterf]

All of those non-citizens (or their parents or grandparents) in the West Bank and in Gaza chose to side with the invading Arab armies of 1948, to destroy Israel, and wanted nothing to do with living under Israeli law... either in 1948 or the two decades prior to 1967.

Those arab army's went in to protect the civil rights of the indigenous arab population, that was being systematically stripped from them as more zionists migrated into the area. They were basically trying to do, what the British should have done, which was restore order.

There was no major violence in that area prior to the zionist migration.

And who wants to live under Israeli apartheid laws? In East Jerusalem, if a Palestinian starts a conversation with an Israeli settler (I call them Israeli insurgents), he could get arrested. In contrast, an Israeli settler can walk around with a machine gun, blow bunch of Palestinian's away and serve maybe a couple hours in a local jail, then released. Who the **** in their right mind would want to live under such repression?

Why would a Palestinian be arrested if he or she starts a conversation with a Jew? What law was broken?

It will become clear if you remember that Billo's idea of 'starting a conversation' is a tirade of vile abuse.

 

[Peterf]

georgephillip, et al,







Spoils of war. You attack me, I take your land and keep it. It has happened so many times in human history that it is a surprise to see some one that does not know it.

Exactly. Start a war and lose it and you may lose territory. Ask the Germans if you don't believe me.

Imo Israel needs every bit of land it now has for its security. The place is surrounded by implacable enemies, bent on its complete destruction and the murder of its citizens.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay​

October 24, 2012
By David Solway

---

For it is almost inconceivable that a few million citizens of a newly established nation could successfully resist the military onslaught of vastly larger armies time and again. It must also contend against the enmity of its nominal allies in the West, the propaganda campaigns of the world’s major NGOs and opinion-forming bodies, the lies and slanders of the political and media elites, the ignorance of multitudes, and the specter of daily terror. It is equally inconceivable that this same beleaguered nation could at the same time become one of the world’s leading innovators in science, technology, medicine and agriculture, offering benefits to mankind out of all proportion to its numbers and circumstances—while reaping, for the most part, resentment, envy and violence.

For some, the continued existence of Israel is a sign of divine solicitude; for others, of human fortitude, hope and commitment at its most incandescent. But whatever the reason for this rarest of phenomena, the emergence of the theoretically impossible, it is a safe bet that Israel will still be around when its adversaries and detractors have succumbed to their own contradictions and dilemmas. Get used to it. Israel is here to stay.

Get Used to It: Israel Is Here to Stay

Does Israel have borders?
If so, what is its eastern boundary?

Medina, which was stolen from the Jews by Mohammed and his feral herd of desert bandits.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip, et al,

This is nonsense.

georgephillip, et al,

For all intent and purposes, you are talking about non-Israeli Citizens in Occupied Territory, who have been and continue to be hostile enemy non-combatants.

I'm saying millions of non-Jews who are subject to Israeli military laws have no voice in selecting those Jews or non-Jews who write the laws.

(COMMON SENSE - CUSTOMARY LAW)

I cannot think of a single military occupation in the last millennium, that permitted the hostile enemy population of a foreign state to have a voice in domestic political affairs.

When you think of one, let me know.

Most Respectfully,
R

First tell me what "foreign state" you're referring to?

(COMMENT)

The State of Palestine (as of 1988) is provisionally occupied by the State of Israel.

The provisionally occupied territory (Palestine) is a foreign state relative to the occupying power (Israel). If it were not such a case, it wouldn't be an "occupation" and the Geneva Convention would not apply. It would be a pure domestic matter.

Zionists began their creeping annexation of Palestine over one hundred years ago, and apparently you've chosen to support their hostilities and condemn their victims. Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza are not hostile non-combatants they are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention:

(COMMENT)

I did not referred to any aspect of my comment, the Settlements under the provisional occupation. And I did not specifically address Article 8, Part II, ICC-RS complaints. Your GCIV citation applies to the settlements, but does not apply to hostile and belligerent non-combatants.

Both the HAMAS Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter further the original threat and solemn oath of the Palestinian which opposes peace. The original threat of aggression and conflict being made before occupation. Those Arab that falll under the pledge of the original threat, or subscribe to the HAMAS Covenant (Jihadist) or the Palestinian National Charter, fall under Article 68 of the GCIV.

Article 68.

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.​

SOURCE: GCIV

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

When you think of a credible rationalization of Israel's illegal military occupation of Palestine, tell me.

(COMMENT)

Many times I have copied the relevant threats to the duly constituted State of Israel. I don't think it is necessary to do it again. But the summation of the threats, made in 1948, and still amplified today, are the prima facie case that are in ample evidence and present just cause to continue Occupation and quarantine of Palestinians.

creeping annexation

(COMMENT)

The State of Israel has not attempted to annex either the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. While a case can be made that there are defiant settlements within the West Bank, this is a matter of Treaty Settlement pursuant to restitution, reparations, and civil claims agreements.

In the case of continuing "occupation" - there is nothing illegal about it.

Article 6

In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.​

SOURCE: GCIV

The Hostile Arab-Palestinian has never openly stated an end to the conflict, renounced the solemn oath for death to the Jewish People, altered the call for Jihad, or recanted the need for armed struggle in the overthrow of the Jewish State. Therefore, under Article 6, the one year occupation convention has never been activated by the Hostile Arab Palestinian. And thus, there is no Arab-Palestinian credential for cause of complaint in the matter of the scope and duration of the Occupation. The end of occupation is determined by the terms set in the Palestinian threat.

When the Palestinian sues for peace, and renounces the conflict, AND demonstrates this by some irrefutable action and deed, then and only then does the Article 6 convention come into play.

Most Respectfully,
R