Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior

[fanger]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

 

[Dot Com]

its their rw gov't headed by Bibi.

 

[Tank]

Good, the Jews are the better people

 

[Eloy]

Zionist Israel is a scofflaw state.

 

[Dot Com]

Good, the Jews are the better people

arent you jewish racist boi? Why yes, yes you are. Proves OP's point

 

[Tank]

If the Jews are such bad people, why do the sand negros want to be in Israel?

 

[Ringel05]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

 

[The Great Goose]

I don't think that Tank is Jewish.

 

[montelatici]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

The Nazis did what they thought was best for their own protection.
The white South Africans did what they thought was best for their own protection.

 

[Ringel05]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

The Nazis did what they thought was best for their own protection.
The white South Africans did what they thought was best for their own protection.

How did I know that was coming......... You're part of the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" crowd, aren't ya......... You gonna compare the rest of the world also? Given you apparent criteria you should.

 

[montelatici]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

The Nazis did what they thought was best for their own protection.
The white South Africans did what they thought was best for their own protection.

How did I know that was coming......... You're part of the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" crowd, aren't ya......... You gonna compare the rest of the world also? Given you apparent criteria you should.

How many countries rule over millions of people living in sectioned parts of territory under the country's complete control on the basis of religious/ethnic affiliation? Not since the South African Bantustans have we seen anything on the scale of what the Israelis are doing.

 

[Ringel05]

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.


By Lawrence Davidson

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threw a temper tantrum on Dec. 24 after the U.S. failed to veto United Nations Security Council Resolution 2234 condemning Zionist settlements on Palestinian territory.


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, in opposition to President Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Netanyahu called the resolution “shameful.” He went so far as to tell the foreign secretary of New Zealand, one of the countries that brought the resolution forward for a vote, that this action was the equivalent of “an act of war.” He then started recalling Israeli ambassadors from the Security Council states that backed the resolution. Finally, Netanyahu said Israel would “not abide by it [the resolution].” All in all it was quite a performance.

In order to put the prime minister’s outrage in context, let’s look at what, in part, the resolution actually says. It “reaffirms the obligation of Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War … and recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions…”

In other words, UNSC Resolution 2234 told the Israeli government that it is obliged to follow the rule of law – in this case international law. Mr. Netanyahu’s response was to repudiate that law. Thus, the Israeli prime minister ran from the law – something outlaws do.

This is nothing new. Israel has been acting in a criminal fashion in (among other areas) the West Bank of Palestine for the past 50 years – and doing so with impunity. “Impunity” is the key word here. The prime minister’s response was, in part, to the unexpected refusal of the United States to continue its half-century practice of protecting the Zionist state from any consequences for its illegal behavior.

Israel’s Above-the-Law Behavior – Consortiumnews
They refuse to recognize The very UN that brought israel into being

Name one country that has not at one time or another violated international law or continues to do so. Unfortunately it appears that Lawrence has joined the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" propaganda crowd hence surrendering any credibility concerning having an unbiased view. Indeed an unfortunate position for any social scientist, expected to be unbiasedly neutral, to find themselves in.
Does that mean Israel is completely blameless? Of course not, they're a nation doing what they think is best for their own protection, like all nations/peoples do, sometimes they get it right sometimes they don't and as always right and wrong can be subjective depending on the viewer.

The Nazis did what they thought was best for their own protection.
The white South Africans did what they thought was best for their own protection.

How did I know that was coming......... You're part of the "Israel is an Criminal Apartheid Nation" crowd, aren't ya......... You gonna compare the rest of the world also? Given you apparent criteria you should.

How many countries rule over millions of people living in sectioned parts of territory under the country's complete control on the basis of religious/ethnic affiliation? Not since the South African Bantustans have we seen anything on the scale of what the Israelis are doing.

Link? (valid neutral link, not an obvious anti-Israel link).

 

[montelatici]

A link to what? You are aware that Israel rules over the West Bank controlling all its borders and air space as well as maintaining internal control with the IDF. You must also be aware that the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza is controlled by Israel. You need link for that.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't think that Tank is Jewish.

he said he was last year guy. He's the leading racist on the board (look at the threads he dumps in Current Events) and he's jewish by his own admission

 

[Hollie]

A link to what? You are aware that Israel rules over the West Bank controlling all its borders and air space as well as maintaining internal control with the IDF. You must also be aware that the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza is controlled by Israel. You need link for that.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences. Do you really need a link for that?

When Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, there was an opportunity for the Arabs-Moslems to make an effort at building a functioning society. The only effort expended by the Arabs-Moslems was to spend their welfare fraud checks on weapons and ammunition for the gee-gawd. They failed to make any effort at building a workable society and "succeeded" at nothing more than becoming just another dysfunctional Islamist terrrist enclave.

 

[RoccoR]

fanger, et al,

I see people all the time using this term of "Apartheid" --- and not actually know what it means. To the layman, they seem to thing that all you need to meet the characteristics of Apartheid is the barrier. Our own Secretary of State has the concentrated ineptitude. And it appears that Marine General Mattis is just as confused on the subject as Secretary Kerry.

Apartheid has a very specific meaning.

Despite stern warnings from the U.N. and even the U.S., Israel continues its steady march toward becoming an apartheid state that relies on anti-Arab racism to justify its behavior, as Lawrence Davidson describes.

(INFORATION)

• Article 7 (1) (j)
Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid Elements --- Page 12, Elements of the Criminal Code, International Criminal Court (ICC)

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts.

• (a) Murder;
• (b) Extermination;
• (c) Enslavement;
• (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
• (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
​

• Article 7(2h)
Crimes Against Humanity Page #4, Rome Statues, ICC

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
​

• Article 7(2d)
Crimes Against Humanity Page #4, Rome Statues, ICC

"Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
​

(COMMENT)

Both HAMAS and FATAH have engaged in acts, methods and practices of terrorism. Both of these organizations and more (Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, etc) declared public praise for perpetrators of terrorist acts. The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) using all forms of propaganda, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace.

There is no question that there are some territorial disputes between the Arab Palestinians and Israelis. But the key and central issue has been self-defense --- against Arab Palestinian armed attack; and taken measures necessary to maintain regional and international peace and security.

The Israelis were not inhumane towards the Arab Palestinians. While there may have been individual events over the of a criminal nature; that was not the dominant characteristics of the Israelis. The Israelis were not cruel and barbaric.

The was no real systematic oppression and domination as an Israel goal; but, rather the Israelis attempted to apply such measures to restore, and ensure, public order and safety. This would include measures to eliminate international terrorism and to enhance the struggle against HoAP activities included in the pledge of Jihad and armed struggle.

There was NO domination by one racial group in Israel over any other racial group in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In fact Israel is more diverse both racially and religiously that the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." But that means "forced displacement." Israeli Settlements are not a matter of the forced displacement of Israelis by the Israeli Government.

Now I could go on and on, but you can see where I'm going here.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Brutal Invading European Zionists (BieZ) had always envisioned the colonization and oppression of the indigenous Muslims and Christians of Palestine. Israelis Jews today dominate non-Jews through force of arms either through control of borders, air space and territorial sea, or through a military presence.

There was and is systematic oppression of the non-Jews by the Zionists from the start. The Zionist's insistence on establishing minority rule through gerrymandering, was at the core of the Partition Plan. The non-Jews, when the Bedouin population were considered, outnumbered the Zionists at the time of partition.

Insofar as the transfer of population is concerned, you are wrong again, as usual.

The ICJ's Wall decision states:

Article 49(6) of the Fourth Hague Convention “prohibits not only deportations and forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying power to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory”.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

 

[Hollie]

The Brutal Invading European Zionists (BieZ) had always envisioned the colonization and oppression of the indigenous Muslims and Christians of Palestine. Israelis Jews today dominate non-Jews through force of arms either through control of borders, air space and territorial sea, or through a military presence.

There was and is systematic oppression of the non-Jews by the Zionists from the start. The Zionist's insistence on establishing minority rule through gerrymandering, was at the core of the Partition Plan. The non-Jews, when the Bedouin population were considered, outnumbered the Zionists at the time of partition.

Insofar as the transfer of population is concerned, you are wrong again, as usual.

The ICJ's Wall decision states:

Article 49(6) of the Fourth Hague Convention “prohibits not only deportations and forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying power to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory”.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf

Was there an invasion of your invented "country of Pal'istan"?

Thats odd because I find no historical (as opposed to your hysterical) record of any such invasion. I'm assuming you have no facts to present as your hysterical presentation of events that never occurred in places that never existed pretty much suggests your buffoonish comments are pointless.

 

[Indeependent]

A link to what? You are aware that Israel rules over the West Bank controlling all its borders and air space as well as maintaining internal control with the IDF. You must also be aware that the borders, territorial sea and air space of Gaza is controlled by Israel. You need link for that.

Israel is doing so at the behest of Jordan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There is no question that there are some territorial disputes between the Arab Palestinians and Israelis.

Indeed, like Israel has its fat ass parked in Palestine.