Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
et al,
At this stage of the game, it really doesn't matter any more.
If the Palestinians want peace, want to build a nation, want to have an expanding economy, want to change the image they have from terrorist to productive members of the international community, then all they need to do is stop the struggle and the fighting. Accept a level of reasonableness.
But, we don't have to worry about borders and we don't have to be concerned about the Statehood of Palestine. I really don't think that the Palestinians are going to move toward being a productive member of the Middle Eastern Community; they are more leaning towards a self-destructive path. They want the continuation of negative outcomes. They want to be victims.
Most Respectfully,
R
The only "peace" ever offered to the Palestinians is surrender. They have never done that.
Why should they do that now that they are getting the upper hand?
Do you mean Israel?
First the Pro- Palestinian tells us that Israel has never " offered enough", the Palestinians are being " fair" and when proven she's a liar their next claim is that Israel shouldn't even exist no matter what.
The U.N. determined it should. The U.N. determined there should be two States. They didn't want to accept it, it's their problem. Deal with it.
Buddy, you're delusional, I never claimed any of what you said. Plus, you keep doing that, i.e., having no proper response so you change the subject and accuse me of something that I never said. Please report back to your imaginary mossad cell that the new tactics aren't working.
et al,
At this stage of the game, it really doesn't matter any more.
If the Palestinians want peace, want to build a nation, want to have an expanding economy, want to change the image they have from terrorist to productive members of the international community, then all they need to do is stop the struggle and the fighting. Accept a level of reasonableness.
But, we don't have to worry about borders and we don't have to be concerned about the Statehood of Palestine. I really don't think that the Palestinians are going to move toward being a productive member of the Middle Eastern Community; they are more leaning towards a self-destructive path. They want the continuation of negative outcomes. They want to be victims.
Most Respectfully,
R
The only "peace" ever offered to the Palestinians is surrender. They have never done that.
Why should they do that now that they are getting the upper hand?
Another Pro- Palestinian lie. Israel left Gaza and all they got were Rockets. Olmert offered approx. 93% of the W. Bank and a shared E. Jerusalem which was turned down. That is " surrender" only in the Pro- Palestinian mentality Let the Palestinians procced as they have. 67 Borders and " Right of Return" will never happen.
The only "peace" ever offered to the Palestinians is surrender. They have never done that.
Why should they do that now that they are getting the upper hand?
Another Pro- Palestinian lie. Israel left Gaza and all they got were Rockets. Olmert offered approx. 93% of the W. Bank and a shared E. Jerusalem which was turned down. That is " surrender" only in the Pro- Palestinian mentality Let the Palestinians procced as they have. 67 Borders and " Right of Return" will never happen.
[Click here: PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper[/URL]
This is what was offered. Abbas got ALMOST everything he wanted Abbas didn't like it? He gets nothing
First the Pro- Palestinian tells us that Israel has never " offered enough", the Palestinians are being " fair" and when proven she's a liar their next claim is that Israel shouldn't even exist no matter what.
The U.N. determined it should. The U.N. determined there should be two States. They didn't want to accept it, it's their problem. Deal with it.
Buddy, you're delusional, I never claimed any of what you said. Plus, you keep doing that, i.e., having no proper response so you change the subject and accuse me of something that I never said. Please report back to your imaginary mossad cell that the new tactics aren't working.
You're schizophrenic. You never claimed that Israel isn't doing enough , the Palestinians are, and Iran will Nuke Israel if they don't do the right thing? Another Pro- Palestinian liar. Please go back to your psychiatrist and have him write an order for your expired medication.
He will explain to you SLOWLY and CAREFULLY that the U.N. granted Israel become a Country and declared it's Independence May 14, 1948.
SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Every country that is involved in some sort of military adventurism, armed dispute, or police action is troubled by the likes of peace activists.
(COMMENT)Miko Peled claims over 90 percent of resistance today is nonviolent resistance. I was just watching a you tube video he was debating a Zionist in from December, I posted it on the Samer Issawi thread, and I am about to order his book The Generals Son on Amazon. Palestinian American Mazin Qumsiyeh also wrote a recent book documenting the growing nonviolent resistance movement. He presently lives in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem.
Sharing the Land of Canaan - Popular Resistance in Palestine
I have nothing disrespectful or uncomplimentary about Miko Peled; that isn't applicable to every one of the peace activists I've ever run across. They are all similar. But they are all seem staunchly one-sided.
The case of the Israel 'v' Palestinian needs a balanced hand. The ability to comprehend the view from both positions and reconcile differences. Activists generally don't have this quality.
While Miko Peled, makes some very good observations, and is critical (as I am) of the Israeli position on many of the individual issues at hand, he is not balanced in terms of the perspectives that make the composite of the issue in totality.
Most Respectfully,
R
Another Pro- Palestinian lie. Israel left Gaza and all they got were Rockets. Olmert offered approx. 93% of the W. Bank and a shared E. Jerusalem which was turned down. That is " surrender" only in the Pro- Palestinian mentality Let the Palestinians procced as they have. 67 Borders and " Right of Return" will never happen.
[Click here: PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper[/URL]
This is what was offered. Abbas got ALMOST everything he wanted Abbas didn't like it? He gets nothing
In the end, Palestinians will get all of Palestine back and The Jewish State will be destroyed, and I thank God for that! Despite all your baby killing comrades, justice will prevail!
SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Every country that is involved in some sort of military adventurism, armed dispute, or police action is troubled by the likes of peace activists.
(COMMENT)Miko Peled claims over 90 percent of resistance today is nonviolent resistance. I was just watching a you tube video he was debating a Zionist in from December, I posted it on the Samer Issawi thread, and I am about to order his book The Generals Son on Amazon. Palestinian American Mazin Qumsiyeh also wrote a recent book documenting the growing nonviolent resistance movement. He presently lives in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem.
Sharing the Land of Canaan - Popular Resistance in Palestine
I have nothing disrespectful or uncomplimentary about Miko Peled; that isn't applicable to every one of the peace activists I've ever run across. They are all similar. But they are all seem staunchly one-sided.
The case of the Israel 'v' Palestinian needs a balanced hand. The ability to comprehend the view from both positions and reconcile differences. Activists generally don't have this quality.
While Miko Peled, makes some very good observations, and is critical (as I am) of the Israeli position on many of the individual issues at hand, he is not balanced in terms of the perspectives that make the composite of the issue in totality.
Most Respectfully,
R
Miko Peled, his father was an Israeli General and he was in the Israeli military, as well. So, there is no basis for your claims of one sidedness. He saw both sides, he even had a niece killed by a suicide bomber, but rightly concluded the real blame for her death was the Occupation.
The fact is we all take stands regarding Injustices like Occupation, Apartheid, Colonialism, Slavery. We support Injustice or we oppose it, or do nothing, and that is the same as being complicit with it.
SherriMunnerlyn, et al,
Yes, this is the direction the movement needs to go; no question.
(COMMENT)Miko Peled claims over 90 percent of resistance today is nonviolent resistance. I was just watching a you tube video he was debating a Zionist in from December, I posted it on the Samer Issawi thread, and I am about to order his book The Generals Son on Amazon. Palestinian American Mazin Qumsiyeh also wrote a recent book documenting the growing nonviolent resistance movement. He presently lives in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem.Sure there are advancements on the Palestinian side. The biggest and most important is that about six years ago the Palestinians, as a policy, stopped all suicide bombing. Rocket attacks out of Gaza are rare and usually in response to Israeli aggression.
The Palestinians have moved almost exclusively to non violent resistance.
It is better if the Palestinian Movement could use Israel's own records and data to demonstrate a shift in direction from violence to non-violence.
Remember, if you can document an end to hostilities for a year, you can challenge the legitimacy of a continued occupation; if it is a real occupation. This will be the hard part for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Solve the legal equation.
The International Court and address the following questions:
- Is Israel (technically) an "Occupation Power" as defined by the GCIV?
- Is Israel involved in an "illegal occupation?"
- Is there an absolute "right to oppose occupation?"
- Is there an international prohibition "illegal annexation?"
Once this is done, the outcomes will help in the settlement of claims and reparations.
Most Respectfully,
R
[Click here: PA rejects Olmert's offer to withdraw from 93% of West Bank - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper[/URL]
This is what was offered. Abbas got ALMOST everything he wanted Abbas didn't like it? He gets nothing
In the end, Palestinians will get all of Palestine back and The Jewish State will be destroyed, and I thank God for that! Despite all your baby killing comrades, justice will prevail!
How is destroying another State 'justice'?
In the end, Palestinians will get all of Palestine back and The Jewish State will be destroyed, and I thank God for that! Despite all your baby killing comrades, justice will prevail!
How is destroying another State 'justice'?
The State lacks legitimacy, refuses to abide by intl law, is a Rogue Nation, is an Apartheid state, carries out daily crimes against humanity, steals land, destroys homes, regularly and deliberately hurts and kills civilians and children, unfalsely imprisons, tortures, commits ethnic cleansing, commits genocide, carries out a Holocaust against Gentiles in the land and carries out an Occupation she refuses to bring to an end!
The state existing in its present form is an Injustice that needs righting!
Nazi Germany was not a Regime that the world could tolerate, and Zionist Israel is another Regime that the world cannot tolerate!
So many daily human rights abuses occur, I feel like every day Isreal herself is crying out to God for her own destruction! She cannot seem capable of fixing any of her problems, they only get worse.
Israel did not win the WB, Gaza and East Jerusalem from 'Palestinians' - but from Jordan and Egypt.
Which, not being "indigenous" Palestinian people, were therefore *also* occupiers.
The question remains: What was the UN 'justification' for not intervening before 1967?
Israel did not win the WB, Gaza and East Jerusalem from 'Palestinians' - but from Jordan and Egypt.
Which, not being "indigenous" Palestinian people, were therefore *also* occupiers.
The question remains: What was the UN 'justification' for not intervening before 1967?
The UN Charter says acquiring land by military conquest is unlawful.
The Intl Court Of Justice tells us Israel is an Occupier of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. She has no sovereignty rights in those lands. Illegal settlers living there live there in violation of The Fourth Geneva Convention and are war criminals.
Your questions have no relevance to the legal issues, and frankly the law is clear that East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are Occupied.
As has been discussed by other posters, Israel has shaky grounds to claim she legitimately holds any of the lands in Palestine. There is nothing in The Intl Court Of Justice opinion that legitimizes Israel's rights to the rest of Palestine, the rights to those other lands (I am referring to the lands set aside for a Jewish State by the UN Partition Plan that was never approved by the UN and the lands Israel took in ethnic clenasing between 1947 and 1949 that was defined as part of the Arab State in the UN Partition Plan that was never implemented by the UN) was simply not an issue before the Court.
Israel did not win the WB, Gaza and East Jerusalem from 'Palestinians' - but from Jordan and Egypt.
Which, not being "indigenous" Palestinian people, were therefore *also* occupiers.
The question remains: What was the UN 'justification' for not intervening before 1967?
The UN Charter says acquiring land by military conquest is unlawful.
The Intl Court Of Justice tells us Israel is an Occupier of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. She has no sovereignty rights in those lands. Illegal settlers living there live there in violation of The Fourth Geneva Convention and are war criminals.
Your questions have no relevance to the legal issues, and frankly the law is clear that East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are Occupied.
As has been discussed by other posters, Israel has shaky grounds to claim she legitimately holds any of the lands in Palestine. There is nothing in The Intl Court Of Justice opinion that legitimizes Israel's rights to the rest of Palestine, the rights to those other lands (I am referring to the lands set aside for a Jewish State by the UN Partition Plan that was never approved by the UN and the lands Israel took in ethnic clenasing between 1947 and 1949 that was defined as part of the Arab State in the UN Partition Plan that was never implemented by the UN) was simply not an issue before the Court.
That is all your opinion - and due to the extreme nature of your prejudice, it is wholly unreliable and totally worthless and useless. I think it also misrepresents the ICJ opinion.
With the thousands and thousands who have been killed In Syria (both Muslims and Christians) and the killings still going on (which of course include children), Frau Sherri, the good Christian woman is still babbling on and on about Israel's right to exist and cares nothing about the innocent people being killed in Syria. If she really cared, she wouldn't be spending her entire life on forums bashing Israel, but would certainly be on other forums condemning what her Muslims friends are doing in Syria and other points in this world. Maybe we should get some Hindus on here that can babble on and on about Pakistan's right to exist since millions of Hindus had to leave their ancestral land to make the Muslims happy (and let us not forget the millions of Hindus who were killed when Pakistan was created). And now the Hindus who remained can't even practice their religion in peace. The big question here is who is messing with Frau Sherri's head?Buddy, you're delusional, I never claimed any of what you said. Plus, you keep doing that, i.e., having no proper response so you change the subject and accuse me of something that I never said. Please report back to your imaginary mossad cell that the new tactics aren't working.
You're schizophrenic. You never claimed that Israel isn't doing enough , the Palestinians are, and Iran will Nuke Israel if they don't do the right thing? Another Pro- Palestinian liar. Please go back to your psychiatrist and have him write an order for your expired medication.
He will explain to you SLOWLY and CAREFULLY that the U.N. granted Israel become a Country and declared it's Independence May 14, 1948.
All that baby killing is really messing with your head and your judgment. Why dont you try to set the Hate aside, just let it go? Hating and killing is not the only way! There is another path you can take.
The UN has no authority to grant Statehood, and they did not do that either. The UN Partition Resolution was not properly passed by the UN, it never happened.
Israel did not win the WB, Gaza and East Jerusalem from 'Palestinians' - but from Jordan and Egypt.
Which, not being "indigenous" Palestinian people, were therefore *also* occupiers.
The question remains: What was the UN 'justification' for not intervening before 1967?
The UN Charter says acquiring land by military conquest is unlawful.
The Intl Court Of Justice tells us Israel is an Occupier of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza. She has no sovereignty rights in those lands. Illegal settlers living there live there in violation of The Fourth Geneva Convention and are war criminals.
Your questions have no relevance to the legal issues, and frankly the law is clear that East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are Occupied.
As has been discussed by other posters, Israel has shaky grounds to claim she legitimately holds any of the lands in Palestine. There is nothing in The Intl Court Of Justice opinion that legitimizes Israel's rights to the rest of Palestine, the rights to those other lands (I am referring to the lands set aside for a Jewish State by the UN Partition Plan that was never approved by the UN and the lands Israel took in ethnic clenasing between 1947 and 1949 that was defined as part of the Arab State in the UN Partition Plan that was never implemented by the UN) was simply not an issue before the Court.
That is all your opinion - and due to the extreme nature of your prejudice, it is wholly unreliable and totally worthless and useless. I think it also misrepresents the ICJ opinion.
My questions were about the history: the account you gave made no sense. Neither the Jordanians nor the Egyptians were Palestinian - and the Jordanians undoubtedly carried out ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem. Those are simple facts. So the Jordanians and Egyptians *had* to also be occupiers. That is another simple fact. Neither group *allowed* the Palestinians to develop lives outside of the 'refugee' camps. The Palestinians had neither freedom nor self-determination under Jordanian and Egyptian rule: they were 'occupied'.
Now, the question remains: IN what way - if ANY - did the Israeli 'occupation' differ from that of Jordan and Egypt? Why did 'occupation' only seem to become an issue worthy of UN attention after 1967?
I think the answers to those questions are indeed relevant.
The Palestinians had neither freedom nor self-determination under Jordanian and Egyptian rule: they were 'occupied'.
(COMMENT)Yes, this is the direction the movement needs to go; no question.
(COMMENT)Miko Peled claims over 90 percent of resistance today is nonviolent resistance. I was just watching a you tube video he was debating a Zionist in from December, I posted it on the Samer Issawi thread, and I am about to order his book The Generals Son on Amazon. Palestinian American Mazin Qumsiyeh also wrote a recent book documenting the growing nonviolent resistance movement. He presently lives in Beit Sahour, near Bethlehem.
It is better if the Palestinian Movement could use Israel's own records and data to demonstrate a shift in direction from violence to non-violence.
Remember, if you can document an end to hostilities for a year, you can challenge the legitimacy of a continued occupation; if it is a real occupation. This will be the hard part for the Palestinians and the Israelis. Solve the legal equation.
The International Court and address the following questions:
- Is Israel (technically) an "Occupation Power" as defined by the GCIV?
- Is Israel involved in an "illegal occupation?"
- Is there an absolute "right to oppose occupation?"
- Is there an international prohibition "illegal annexation?"
Once this is done, the outcomes will help in the settlement of claims and reparations.
Most Respectfully,
R
All of those questions have been addressed except some legal authority actually defining the term illegal occupation.
The International Court of Justice has already held Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, no need to do it again.
We have UN Resolutions extending for decades affirming the right of those occupied to resist Occupation, and resistance can lawfully include armed resistance.
The Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocols specifically tell us annexations are unlawful, they change the character of the land.
The problem is not with intl law, intl law is clear, Isreal occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza and only the indigenous Palestinian people have sovereignty rights in that land. The problem is we have no effective mechanism to make Israel abide by intl law and end her unlawful Occupation and stop teh human rights abuses. What the US should be doing is cutting off that 4 billion dollars yearly aid until Israel abides with all of her obligations under intl law.
(COMMENT)The International Court of Justice has already held Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention, no need to do it again.
(COMMENT)We have UN Resolutions extending for decades affirming the right of those occupied to resist Occupation, and resistance can lawfully include armed resistance.
(COMMENT)The Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocols specifically tell us annexations are unlawful, they change the character of the land.
Article 47 said:Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.
SOURCE: International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention
Article 147 said:Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or
property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
