Marwan Barghouti

[P F Tinmore]

The responsibility is that of the aggressor not the victim.

Unbelievable. So, in your opinion, in any country which has been colonized - the "victim" (the indigenous peoples) have the right to target and murder three year old children.

You are scary.

The parent's have the responsibility for their children's safety.

 

[Challenger]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

 

[Freeman]

Freeman, et al,

Whether or not the Israeli Palestinians are "peaceful" or not is not really germain to the issue.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

(QUESTION)

The question is, whether or not the Oslo Accords; --- granted Israel the Israel civil and security control over Area "C?"

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank is considered occupied by UN and all countries, settlements are illegal in this region.

 

[Hollie]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Cutting and pasting photos with no context is standard fare for people like you.

If your intention is to include women and children under the title of combatant, then you also need to include islamo-women and children.

So, no more whining from you and others about the numbers of dead islamos when Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism.

Get your Pom Poms ready to cheer on your Islamic terrorist heroes. How nice that you are so willing to offer up the lives of others from the comfort and safety of your keyboard gee-had

 

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

In the last half century, the term "Occupied" has become politicized; separate and distinct from "Occupied" in the legal sense.

Freeman, et al,

Whether or not the Israeli Palestinians are "peaceful" or not is not really germain to the issue.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

(QUESTION)

The question is, whether or not the Oslo Accords; --- granted Israel the Israel civil and security control over Area "C?"

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank is considered occupied by UN and all countries, settlements are illegal in this region.

(COMMENT)

The true meaning of the term is:

• "Article #42 1907 Hague Regulation:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

This particular law does not speak to the Oslo Accords wherein:

1. For the purpose of this Agreement and until the completion of the first phase of the further redeployments:

a. "Area A" means the populated areas delineated by a red line and shaded in brown on attached map No. 1;

b. "Area B" means the populated areas delineated by a red line and shaded in yellow on attached map No. 1, and the built-up area of the hamlets listed in Appendix 6 to Annex I; and

c. "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.
​

Points to be considered and the purpose of the tone:

• Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and those that provide material support to the activities of the HoAP, used the term "Occupied" as if it were a "criminal" accusation. The HoAP adopted this language tone in order to both justify and incite violence in the form of terrorism, jihadism, insurgent movements, and other asymmetric warfare models associated with a concentrated low intensity conflict.

• The HoAP recurring demand that Israel "end the occupation" by total evacuation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, lifting the anti-contraband and SALWs Security Screen, dismantlement of the Security Barrier as a deterrent to HoAP infiltration, open borders, etc ... etc ... etc ...
​

This directly connect to two other incitement issues and politicalization of the word "Occupied."

• Very often we see (even on this discussion group) the twisting of the such that "foreign occupied" is something even more sinister that the Isreali occupation of the West Bank from the Jordanians, and the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians. In 1967, Israel did not "occupy" and territory that was not under the control of the members of the Arab League (primarily Egypt and Jordan).

• And again, and we've seen this adopted right on line here in this discussion group, an active comparison of the "occupation in terms of the Warsaw Ghetto or an Open Air Concentration Camp. Clearly this language was intentionally designed to ties the Israelis to the WWII NAZI Regime. When, in fact, there were NAZI trained HoAP leaders from 1947 on unto there destruction. And again, this is done as part of the
delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the recent history of a NAZI-occupied Europe during the WWII and drawing a link to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
​

I think people are beginning to see through this.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

Once again the islamomoron posts his OXYMORON and does not realise he is doing it


How can you defend Jews rights to a homeland and the right to defend it while mass murdering Jews ?

Any chance of an answer ?

 

[Phoenall]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiater AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

Which 1967 lines as two existed that year

 

[Freeman]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

Once again the islamomoron posts his OXYMORON and does not realise he is doing it


How can you defend Jews rights to a homeland and the right to defend it while mass murdering Jews ?

Any chance of an answer ?

Wacky, there is no law against fighting settlers.

 

[Phoenall]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

The twisting of the definition in one section of the Geneva conventions and trying to implant it into a different section. In this case taking the definition from the Geneva conventions regarding war and twisting it around and using it in the section regarding occupied territories. Two completely separate sections that are not related in any way, and tinny in his usual way twists the meanings.

 

[Phoenall]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

I fail to understand how a 3 yr child can be anything but acivilian.

Not according to the likes of monte, tinnmore and a few others that are well known for this.

 

[Challenger]

Because of comments, made elsewhere in another thread....I thought this could make an interesting discussion.

Could Barghouti be the one that might be able to turn the Palestinians around from their perpetual impasse? Could he unite them under one voice? Would he be able to negotiate for a two-state solution?

From Israeli perspectives (rightwing and leftwing)

Meet the next Palestinian president

In the interim, Barghouti’s associates have nominated him as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, with the help of Nobel laureates from Argentina and Tunisia, and are trying to brand him as a Palestinian Nelson Mandela. He is, of course, nothing of the sort. He was an integral supporter and orchestrator of the armed Second Intifada, including suicide terror attacks after his comrade Raed al-Karmi was eliminated in Tulkarm in early 2002.​

His new plan may declaredly focus on nonviolent protest, but he is emphatically more radical than Abbas — hence the trust Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders place in him. His ostensible preference may be for a two-state solution arrived at via talks, but unlike Abbas, he believes that if talks do not work, the next recourse must be to take action — in other words, an intifada.​

In rare court appearance, Marwan Barghouti calls for a peace deal based on 1967 lines

However, in recent years Barghouti admitted that the Palestinians made a grave mistake by turning to terrorism. In countless interviews he said he supports "popular resistance" – that is, unarmed resistance.

Israelis will probably claim these are nothing more than tactical statements meant to expedite his release from prison. Whether this claim is right or not, Israel faces a greater problem in the near future: the Tanzim leader's intention to run for president, and likelihood he will get elected. According to all public opinion polls conducted in recent years, Barghouti is the only Fatah member who can easily beat any Hamas contender. In fact, the only scenario that can harm his chances to be elected is if Abbas decides to run again.​

From an outside perspective (BBC):

Profile: Marwan Barghouti - BBC News

The prospect of Barghouti's release has divided Israel, with some cabinet ministers arguing that as a reformist who could unite the rival Palestinian factions, he offers the best prospect for peace should Mr Abbas step down, and others saying someone convicted of five murders should never walk free.​

Ayman Odeh

“The thing I fear the most is that the Palestinians will grow so desperate about the impossibility of two states that they ask for one state,” Odeh said as we talked politics in the car. “Then the Israelis will say, ‘See, now they want Jaffa and Haifa!’ But all that will happen is that the two-state solution will be lost, and we will not gain a real one-state solution, either. It’s a one-state reality now, with parts of it being a military regime with an almost unimaginable gap socially.”

In Palestinian circles, the great unknown is who and what will follow Abbas, who has threatened repeatedly to resign. The usual candidates mentioned are flawed. Muhammad Dahlan, once a popular figure in Gaza, is widely considered corrupt. The head of intelligence, Majid Faraj, is unknown to most Palestinians. Salam Fayyad, the technocratic former Prime Minister, has great support in places like the International Monetary Fund but not on the streets of Jenin and Nablus. Finally, there is Marwan Barghouti, the most popular political figure in the West Bank. The only glitch is that Barghouti has been in prison since 2002, serving five life terms (plus forty years) for five counts of murder, including a role in the bombing of a restaurant in Tel Aviv. Not long after Odeh was elected to the Knesset, he visited Barghouti in prison. I asked him why.

“Barghouti is an interesting example of the different perspectives on the two sides,” he said. “I didn’t just visit him once. I visit him regularly. I see him as a real leader, the most loved Palestinian leader at the moment. But let’s be honest: Amir Peretz”—a former Israeli defense minister and deputy prime minister—“also visited him. Remember, even Nelson Mandela used arms. The worse crime is the occupation. I have no question that peaceful struggle is the way.”​

The Palestinians have serval possible "Mandellas"; what is really needed is a Zionist "FW De Klerk".

 

[Phoenall]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiated AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

It seems to me that "1967 lines" is just a common shorthand for the approximate eventual starting place for negotiations.

No as two sets existed in 1967, the first being the 1949 armistice lines the second being the 1967 wars armistice lines. The second is where we are at now with the addition of the Oslo accords agreements. That is what the Palestinians are so upset about, Arafat selling them down the river and giving up arab muslim land to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Barghouti has said 1967 lines, but I wonder if it's hard and fast, is he a negotiated AND will Israel work with him as they would not with Abbas?

It seems to me that "1967 lines" is just a common shorthand for the approximate eventual starting place for negotiations.

That is kind of how I see it also.

Then you have not done any research on the subject, as the original term used was the 1949 armistice lines. All the other team Palestine members know this and this is why they changed it to 1967 borders, knowing that no such borders have ever existed. You often got them demanding the '67 borders at the same times as stating the '67 lines were not borders.

 

[Challenger]

Freeman, et al,

In the last half century, the term "Occupied" has become politicized; separate and distinct from "Occupied" in the legal sense.

Freeman, et al,

Whether or not the Israeli Palestinians are "peaceful" or not is not really germain to the issue.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

(QUESTION)

The question is, whether or not the Oslo Accords; --- granted Israel the Israel civil and security control over Area "C?"

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank is considered occupied by UN and all countries, settlements are illegal in this region.

(COMMENT)

The true meaning of the term is:

• "Article #42 1907 Hague Regulation:

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
​

This particular law does not speak to the Oslo Accords wherein:

1. For the purpose of this Agreement and until the completion of the first phase of the further redeployments:

a. "Area A" means the populated areas delineated by a red line and shaded in brown on attached map No. 1;

b. "Area B" means the populated areas delineated by a red line and shaded in yellow on attached map No. 1, and the built-up area of the hamlets listed in Appendix 6 to Annex I; and

c. "Area C" means areas of the West Bank outside Areas A and B, which, except for the issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations, will be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction in accordance with this Agreement.
​

Points to be considered and the purpose of the tone:

• Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) and those that provide material support to the activities of the HoAP, used the term "Occupied" as if it were a "criminal" accusation. The HoAP adopted this language tone in order to both justify and incite violence in the form of terrorism, jihadism, insurgent movements, and other asymmetric warfare models associated with a concentrated low intensity conflict.

• The HoAP recurring demand that Israel "end the occupation" by total evacuation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, lifting the anti-contraband and SALWs Security Screen, dismantlement of the Security Barrier as a deterrent to HoAP infiltration, open borders, etc ... etc ... etc ...
​

This directly connect to two other incitement issues and politicalization of the word "Occupied."

• Very often we see (even on this discussion group) the twisting of the such that "foreign occupied" is something even more sinister that the Isreali occupation of the West Bank from the Jordanians, and the Gaza Strip from the Egyptians. In 1967, Israel did not "occupy" and territory that was not under the control of the members of the Arab League (primarily Egypt and Jordan).

• And again, and we've seen this adopted right on line here in this discussion group, an active comparison of the "occupation in terms of the Warsaw Ghetto or an Open Air Concentration Camp. Clearly this language was intentionally designed to ties the Israelis to the WWII NAZI Regime. When, in fact, there were NAZI trained HoAP leaders from 1947 on unto there destruction. And again, this is done as part of the
delegitimization campaign against Israel exploited the language of "occupation" in order to invoke the recent history of a NAZI-occupied Europe during the WWII and drawing a link to Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
​

I think people are beginning to see through this.

Most Respectfully,
R

"Occupation", then and now...Perhaps people are beginning to see through RoccoR's Hasbara.

 

[Phoenall]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Settlers are part and parcel of colonialism. A colonial project/occupation cannot exist without them.

So that is what the arab muslims are then, a colonial project to force the Jews from their lands. They have lost once again and will need to start the next phase of the ongoing war very shortly. They hope it will get them some more support but the media will tell the truth again about hamas and using civilians as human shields.

 

[Phoenall]

Is targeting civilians acceptable?

Of course not but ...The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

I fail to understand how a 3 yr child can be anything but acivilian.

Good point, but if US troops took their families to Iraq, who would be responsible for their safety?

Have their families been forcibly evicted from their property by the Iraqi insurgents and their land given to illegal immigrants. Because that is what happened in the west bank in 1949 when up to 1 million Jews were kicked out

 

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

lies

No cold hard facts that are historically collated. More blacks murdered by mandella while he was in prison than by the white's in charge.

 

[Phoenall]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

The zionazis settlers are the most "peaceful" creatures!

Once again the islamomoron posts his OXYMORON and does not realise he is doing it


How can you defend Jews rights to a homeland and the right to defend it while mass murdering Jews ?

Any chance of an answer ?

Wacky, there is no law against fighting settlers.

Deflecting away from the question again because you know it makes you look an even bigger idiot than you are.

Zionist believes in the right of the Jews to a homeland

Nazi wants to kill all Jews


An OXYMORON from the islamomoron ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[ogibillm]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

lies

No cold hard facts that are historically collated. More blacks murdered by mandella while he was in prison than by the white's in charge.

more lies

 

[Coyote]

Mandella was not a peaceful man. He invented the "burning necklace". Mandella was a terrorist. If you truly want to look for peaceful then look at Sadat.

Of course he was killed by islamic terrorists for his work.

lies

No cold hard facts that are historically collated. More blacks murdered by mandella while he was in prison than by the white's in charge.

How did Mandella manage all these murders while in prison? Do you have evidence showing he was responsible?