Israel does not target civilians?

[Kondor3]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

The League of Nations Covenant does not specifically promise the Arab Palestinians anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"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."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian rejected tutelage three times in the first two years of the Mandate; and several times after that. But don't try to imply that the Arab Palestinian was promised something it was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

...What is so difficult for you to understand?

What does this have to do with the topic?

The question at-hand is whether Israel targets civilians, not a one-sided history lesson on matters that are no longer of any consequence whatsoever.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

The League of Nations Covenant does not specifically promise the Arab Palestinians anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"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."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian rejected tutelage three times in the first two years of the Mandate; and several times after that. But don't try to imply that the Arab Palestinian was promised something it was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are confused.

The Palestinians never rejected British protection (the first meaning of tutelage is "protection" as in Latin). They rejected the British plan to cease protecting them by allowing a European colonization of their land.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically promises the inhabitants of the former Turkish colonies that they would be granted sovereignty after a period of tutelage. The inhabitants were the Muslims and Christians. The Jews were still in Europe. What do you not understand?


"and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. "

 

[theliq]

...The Palestinians are under Occupation Kondie,just because you support this unlawful act...

It really doesn't matter. The Jews of Israel are engaged in Reconquista, and, given the few slivers of land remaining to be secured, their multi-generational goal is now in sight.

...you are just defending the indefensible (Zionist Terrorism)...

I'm not trying to defend it. There is never any defense for Reconquista. Just as there is never any defense for original Conquest. I merely support the soon-to-be Winner.

...by playing summantics sic with shabby words...

I thought they were entirely functional words, and that they did a good yeoman's job as a partisan exercise in applied logic.

...your opinion is rank,like much of the Zionist ramblings...

If that's meant to be a literary review... don't quit your day-job.

...You think you are being clever in front of the Pro-Zionist Lobby on here...

No... I think I'm one voice amongst many friends of Israel, who stand against a Muslim-Palestinian online propaganda machine; and their fifth-column tag-alongs.

...but I see it as someone who finds these piquant situations difficult to comprehend...

Oh, I comprehend the full range of options well enough on the macro level; it's just that there is only one solution (Israeli completion of their Reconquista) left on the table.

The time for creating a Palestinian State would have been anytime in the period 1948-1967, and, failing that, at various points between 1967 and 2000 - the beginning of the 2nd Intifada - which closed that window forevermore. Since then, and by now, there isn't enough contiguous land remaining in which to create a Palestinian State, anyway. It's over.

A one-state solution will not work; that window closed back in the 1950s or 1960s.

A two-state solution will not work; that window closed in 2000 with the 2nd Intifada.

That means that, ultimately, either the Israelis or the Palestinians have to go.

The Israelis have all the playing cards and all the muscle, so it won't be them.

Which means the Palestinians have to go.

As a matter of policy and practice, Israel does not intentionally target civilians in order to inflict civilian casualties, but the insistence of Hamas, et al, in continuing to embed war assets (rocket launchers, operations centers, staging areas, sally ports and tunnels, logistics centers, munitions caches, communications centers, etc.) in civilian residential neighborhoods, mosques, schools, hospitals and clinics, etc., have resulted in large numbers of unintentional but necessary civilian casualties, as the Israelis have prosecuted this ongoing asymmetrical warfare with their sworn mortal enemies.

As to how the Palestinians will leave...

They can go, carried out by their feet, or...

They can go, walking out, with their families and belongings, and with the prospect of a happy, safe, secure life and a prosperous future, elsewhere, to look forward to.

Life is almost always a better choice than Death.

The rag-tag so-called Palestinians need to choose Life.

...,in a word your Brain is under severe CONTAINMENT ,fcuking shame really because you are not a bad Guy...

Thank you for your opinion.

...Seasons Greeting to your Family and yourself...

Thank you. And to you, as well.

Kondie,there is one large point that you regrettably omitted friend,the Palestinians are going nowhere,under your summation Israel would have to force the Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank........as Zionist Terrorists attempted prior to 1948,you are assuming that all Jews desire your "Final Solution".

People who go on assumptions are usually wrong

Educated Jews worldwide and within Israel do not agree in the current right wing situation perpetuated by that Terrorist Organization The Zionists,which is so admired by some sections of the Jews at present,they see it as totally unfair,stupid and insane.....they feel as I do,that these attempts of ERADICATION will in the end bring destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide in general......do you really think the rest of the world would sit back and allow this to happen,they would not.

The Palestinian are not a "Rag-Tag" People...far from it,as they have one of the highest matriculation rates of University entrance worldwide,extremely innovative and a hard working ethic.This can be clearly seen in countries like Kuwait,Saudi,Emirates and Israel itself,something you should educate yourself of and be mindful of, in the future.

Your time line of peace is in itself ignorant,remembering your ex Prime Minister,Defense Chief Mr Rabin was ASSINATED by Jews when Peace was close,no I won't have you slanting the truth or implying Guys like Begin and Netandyarho wanted or want peace,these Rabid Zionists Never wanted or want peace.

Yes you maybe powerful now(all enabled with "Aid" money from other people") this manifests itself in your and others like you in arrogance....the Palestinians are entitled to their land(I am Pragmatic enough to know they will never get all their land,and moreover I believe in a two State Solution) It is a shame that of all the people during the centuries it was only the Palestinians that lived in harmony with their Semitic cousins the Jews)

It was Christians in the main that despised the Jews from Spain to Germany,from the Russian Pogroms to "The Beast" in Germany and his henchmen.......but never once have I heard the motely crew on here complaining about these people...Only the Palestinians,Only the Palestinians,why I ask myself,I can only conclude that as a people you carry collective Guilt and have become more Hateful towards Palestinians.

Nothing Closes in life,as you assume,both Palestinians and Jews/Israelis deserve better,the problem is the minority who wield power on both sides,peace is achievable but at present the leadership of both peoples is weak.

Stop perpetuating such negativity Kondie.......the world and life itself is great but you have to want it enough,both Jews and Palestinians deserve a better life....You only have one solution,I have two,Prime Minister Rabin (and Mr Peres) had two as did Arafat.

As I said,don't even imagine Zionists will get away with trying to displace Palestinians from their Rightful Home. steve

 

[theliq]

montelatici, et al,

The League of Nations Covenant does not specifically promise the Arab Palestinians anything.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"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."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian rejected tutelage three times in the first two years of the Mandate; and several times after that. But don't try to imply that the Arab Palestinian was promised something it was not.

Most Respectfully,
R

It was Actually Rocco

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

The today is pretty much the same as the law, set down by the Judgment. The Rome Statutes use the same language although expanded in some sense.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

(COMMENT)

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

The justification comes directly from the Arab Higher Committee that stated in part:

"The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them."
"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."
​

This is, in effect, where the Arabs of Palestine, openly defy the Resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. It is in effect, a Declaration of War.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.​

Whoa, dude. I think you are talking about an illegal activity.

Could you justify that position?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

We are straying too far off-topic.

1. There is no international dispute, the conflict is between an occupied population and the occupier.

2. Settlements in occupied Palestine are not civilian, they are military citadels which are utilized to facilitate further military conquest.

(COMMENT)

That depends on which set of threats and challenges you listen to from the Hostile Arab Palestinian side. But that is for another discussion.
The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....

You are very confused.

1. The Covenant promises the native people, in the case of Palestine the Arabs, the Mandatory's tutelage to enable the native people to assume full sovereignty from provisional sovereignty.

2. By signing the Covenant the party signing agreed that:

"The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

The Political History of Palestine under British Administration
"Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government."

You cannot force feed the Arabs of Palestine. In late 1947 - early 1948, the Arab of Palestine again declined to participate in the establishment of a process leading to self-government.

Now the Hashemites did cooperate with the Allied Powers and the Mandatory. The were allocated 77% of the territory.

The solemn oath was carried-out.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the Covenant. The Zionists were not natives of Palestine. They were Europeans.

What is so difficult for you to understand?

(COMMENT)

The Arab of Palestine had no right to deny the Jewish immigration rights, or even the establishment of a state. The territory to which the Mandate applied (Palestine) was in the hands of the Allied Powers... not the Arab of Palestine.

There is absolutely nothing in the Covenant that precludes the Allied Powers from determining the future as stipulated in the 1924 Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The settlements are not military in nature. They are established under the Oslo Accords. Areas "A" --- "B" --- "C"....​

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed
by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power
and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent
national authorities from being put under pressure to make conces-
sions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken
its legal rights.

Similarly, the inhabitants of the occupied territory cannot renounce their
rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. This again is a safeguard.
It prevents the occupying power from exploiting the vulnerability of the
occupied territory by exerting undue pressure to undermine and weaken
the protection which the law affords.

ICRC service

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every article in Resolution 1514 is based on already existing international law.

It merely defines the application of existing law.

(COMMENT)

Paragraph 1:
The UN Charter does not mention subjugation or domination. The Charter does not mention "denial of human rights."

Paragraph 2:
The Charter does mention the "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" in reference to the conditions of economic, social progress and development. But that has no relationship to sovereignty or decolonization.

Paragraph 3:
The "pretext" or "delay" was not mentioned in the Charter at all; even remotely to the concept of independence.

Paragraph 4:
This is a tricky "prohibition." This is a domestic issue. For instance, in the United States, there is no right to secede. (Pledge of Allegiance clearly illustrates through the line “one nation, indivisible.”) It is what we call a “perpetual union."

Paragraph 5
This is a case where the UN is implying that it has the authority to intervene and demands a sovereignty to transfer powers.

Article 2(7) Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.​

Paragraph 6:
This has no requirement.

Paragraph 7:
This paragraph is a demand to observe; however, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is formally, as a declaration of the UNGA, is not binding on Member States. While it does have broad international acceptance of the UDHR, over the last 60 years has given its principles some legal status.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has only occasionally referred to the UDHR, usually in dissenting or separate opinions. For example Judge Tanaka’s dissenting opinion in the South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa) (Second Phase) referred to the UDHR as ‘not binding in itself’, but nevertheless ‘evidence of the interpretation and application’ of the human rights clauses in the UN Charter (at 293; see also United Nations Charter, Interpretation of).
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The General Assembly,

Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,

A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,

Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,

Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,

Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,

Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,

Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,

Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,

Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,

Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;

And to this end Declares that:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

Maybe this will help.

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm sorry, my friend, maintaining sovereignty over the airspace and sea, is not a withdrawal. How can you possibly say it is a withdrawal, when Palestinian's can't even go fishing in their own territorial waters, without getting shot at? Because of the security buffers, they can't even farm on their own land. And none of them can leave, without Israeli permission.

Even though troops have been removed, the occupation continues.

 

[Challenger]

...they look uniformed to me...

Correct...

Your Palestinians are, indeed, 'uniform'...

Always a good day to kill a few dozen or a few score of these slime-balls...

Of course, civilians are going to be hurt and killed, when the IDF flattens an area that these scumbags are haunting...

Purely collateral and unintentional...

Nothing deliberate about attacking war-assets and combatants, and thereby generating unintended civilian casualties...

Don't want the civilian casualties?

Move the war-assets...

Oh... and... move the Neanderthal Nazi wannabes like these panty-waists...

Well that would make the militants easy to spot so there's no reason or justification to destroy whole
areas populated by civillians then...unless of course, you are a barbarous, neandethal Zionist Israeli that enjoys killing women and children. Precision weapons? Why bother, let's just carpet bomb them, "kill them all, Allah will know his own"

 

[Challenger]

If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

Point out to me please, when in history that policy has ever worked?

All bombardment does is kill people and strengthen the will of the survivors to resist further. If Zionist Isreal truely ever wanted peace, it would have torn the razor wire down and opened up the border crossings and used it's influence with the West to pump in investment funds from various sources to build up the Gazan economy. Well fed, comfortable people don't normally want to fire rockets anywhere and having much to lose, are just as likely to turn on their more militant groups themselves. Give them hope, not just keep on piling on more reasons for them to hate. Then Zionist Israel might get the peace they profess to want so badly...I won't hold my breath waiting.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Just show me where GA/RES/1514(XV) went into force as law?

"General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

(COMMENT)

You cannot, because it never did.

Most Respectfully,
R

Every article in Resolution 1514 is based on already existing international law.

It merely defines the application of existing law.

Then you will be able to itemise them and the dates they were entered into international law. You will find that most are only recommendations and the few that did become international law did so after December 1960.

ONCE AGAIN YOU TRY AND ENFORCE INTERNATIONAL RETROSPECTIVELY WHEN IT SUITS YOUR POV

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

The today is pretty much the same as the law, set down by the Judgment. The Rome Statutes use the same language although expanded in some sense.

The destruction of the civilian infrastructure of hostile regimes or opposing force, as a means of establishing deterrence against militant use of that infrastructure, or as a means of breaking the will of the opposing force by depriving the support of the general population, is not a war crime.

The Nuremburg Charter might disagree with you. Zionist Israel will have to prove military necessity to avoid article 6b defining War Crimes "...wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity..."

(COMMENT)

Well, no matter who is being charged, the rule of "military necessity" applies. If it is essential that the will of the Palestinian people be broken in order for them to sue for peace, then that is the justification.

The justification comes directly from the Arab Higher Committee that stated in part:

"The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them."
"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."
​

This is, in effect, where the Arabs of Palestine, openly defy the Resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein. It is in effect, a Declaration of War.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

What law was that then, and when did it become law. You cant apply laws retrospectively because they agree with your POV, unless you agree to the same laws being used in Israel's favour.

 

[Kondor3]

...Well that would make the militants easy to spot so there's no reason or justification to destroy whole
areas populated by civillians then...

Incorrect. Enemy combatants who embed themselves amongst civilian populations are legitimate military targets. Just ask the RAF or the US Army Air Force.

...just carpet bomb them, "kill them all, Allah will know his own"

Tempting, but inhumane. Far better to nudge them out, unintentionally losing a (relative) few, so that the vast majority may live, elsewhere.

 

[Phoenall]

Did you miss this then


Palestinian armed groups, where they launched attacks close to civilian or protected buildings, unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to danger.

Yeah, I noticed that. But it's a far cry from your claim they committed more war crimes than Israel.

Then explain why Ban Ki Moon stated that every rocket fired from gaza is a war crime and the hamas terrorists fired over 2000 rockets at Israel before and during operation Cast Lead ? Now find 2000 war crimes by Israel for the same period, and they must be claimed by the UN as war crimes to count.

 

[Phoenall]

Neither does Palestine as they are split by politics and religion.

They're split by Zionist, warmongering assholes, who have no problem shooting innocent civilians on one side and a decent, proud population of Arabs, who just want to live free of Israeli tyranny.

No as we are talking about pre 1948 and the land was never surrendered to the arab muslims

The land before 1948, 85% was owned by Arabs, 7% was owned by Jews.

...land ownership statistics from 1945 showed that Arabs owned more land than Jews in every single district of Palestine, including Jaffa, where Arabs owned 47 percent of the land while Jews owned 39 percent – and Jaffa boasted the highest percentage of Jewish-owned land of any district. In other districts, Arabs owned an even larger portion of the land. At the extreme other end, for instance, in Ramallah, Arabs owned 99 percent of the land. In the whole of Palestine, Arabs owned 85 percent of the land, while Jews owned less than 7 percent, which remained the case up until the time of Israel’s creation.​

The UN Mandate wanted to give over half the land, to a third of the population.

...the U.N. partition recommendation had called for more than half of the land of Palestine to be given to the Zionists for their “Jewish State”.​

Do explain how when the Jews outnumber the Palestinians inside Israel. They only occupy and police the west bank for defensive purposes. The Jews have demonstrated free determination, when will the Palestinian arab muslims ?

When you end the occupation.

Then let them negotiate in good faith mutual borders and peaceful existence. But they fight amongst themselves so much that they anyone capable of entering into negotiations. Nothing at all to do with Israel or the Jews as these are internal matters of power grabs and fraud.

That will not wash as it is from a novel printed on behalf of a committee of anti Jew paid for arab muslim stooges. Shown to monte everytime he posted it which is why he put me on ignore.

After the LoN had given 78% of the land to the same arab muslims as their national home. The UN did not have the authority to change existing international law in this respect and should have told the arab muslims to either leave and go to Jordan with the relocation package offered or stay as full citizens of the Jewish National Home living peacefully side by side with the Jews. The arab muslims chose violence, war and terrorism instead, so the UN should have put a multinational force in to evict the arab muslims.



I cant end the occupation any more than I can say why you hate the Jews. But I can say stop the violence, terrorism and belligerence as demanded by the UN charter and the occupation will be lifted in stages. But after the debacle of gaza in 2005 is it any wonder that the decent civilised people of the world do not trust the Palestinians to keep their word.

 

[Phoenall]

What does the United Nations Charter have to do with international law promulgated after the Charter was signed?

Because it came first and was entered into international law. As you are quick to point out a law cant change the already existing laws

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't have a problem with the Arab Palestinians applying their rights; just as long as they do not deny the very same rights to the authorize immigrants.

The Palestinians asserted their rights under law.

Why do you have a problem with that?

(COMMENT)

I don't think that the Palestinians, that constantly advocate for Jihad, death, and terrorist action under the color of freedom fighting and acting as a perpetual victim, have any room to deny the Israelis anything. Much of the adverse consequences, experienced by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, from the time that the Allied Powers place the territory under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration until the Mandate terminated, was their fault. This sums it up:

"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."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Partition and the assignment of 55% of the land to European colonists contravened the rights accruing to the inhabitants (natives) of the former Turkish territories as under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

So what state governed the arab muslims in Palestine then ? Don't forget they fought on the side of the Ottomans and so lost when they did. This resulted in them losing any rights they had under Ottoman rule. The same arab muslims have repeatedly proven that they are incapable of self determination and capable of standing on their own feet

 

[Phoenall]

Billo_Really, et al,

There is no reasonable expectation that the Palestinians will observe that pledge; even if the Israelis were inclined to give it a second chance.

When you end the occupation.

(COMMENT)

It id not work in 2005 when the Israelis unilaterally withdrew, and it will not work with the Palestinians of the West Bank.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israelis never withdrew from anywhere. Gaza is under the complete control and occupation of Israel.

Not according to the Geneva conventions and International law. For that they have to have a military presence in gaza that exerts complete control of all the citizens and land. This shown to not be the case by the firing of illegal rockets that amount to war crimes, and the digging of terror tunnels into Israel.