Methodist Church Considers HP Company Divestment

[RoccoR]

Freeman, et al,

Hmmm.

Fortunately there are palestinians who will fight against zionazis to liberate their lands.

(COMMENT)

ASK: To liberate "what" land?

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Yes, they may be willing to fight, but it is not legal?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Roudy]

Will the jew slave Clinton boycott her Church?!
"The divestment petition, or proposed church legislation, states that “Hewlett Packard provides data storage for settlements, manages information technology for the Israeli Navy, and provides biometric monitoring of checkpoints inside the West Bank” and that the church has been asking the company not to support Israeli settlements for years."

United Methodist Church Considers Hewlett Packard Divestment

Hey Dopey. Calhoun is out & Israel is in with the United Methodist Church hierarcy & members. Read the latest. Enjoy. 'Atta boy.

United Methodist Church Votes Against Israel Divestment

Yikes! Chalk up another "victory" for the BDS bowel discharge movement. Ha ha ha.

 

[Freeman]

Freeman, et al,

Hmmm.

Fortunately there are palestinians who will fight against zionazis to liberate their lands.

(COMMENT)

ASK: To liberate "what" land?

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Yes, they may be willing to fight, but it is not legal?

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't know an international law against fighting settlers in occupied territories!

 

[Roudy]

You don't know? What do you know?

 

[montelatici]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

 

[Hollie]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

 

[MJB12741]

Freeman, et al,

Hmmm.

Fortunately there are palestinians who will fight against zionazis to liberate their lands.

(COMMENT)

ASK: To liberate "what" land?

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PENAL LEGISLATION. V. PENALTIES. DEATH PENALTY

• 
  ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]
  
  Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 [ Link ] of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
  The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 [ Link ] and 65 [ Link ] may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
  The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
  In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Yes, they may be willing to fight, but it is not legal?

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't know an international law against fighting settlers in occupied territories!

Nor do I. Time to get rid of the Palestinian squatters without any titles or deeds whatsoever on Israel's land.

 

[montelatici]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

 

[MJB12741]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

Hey Monte. Is there anything we can do to get you to post here more often? So little left for us to laugh at these days of radical Islamists killing us infidels all over the world. Thank you sir.

 

[Hollie]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

Thanks.

It's pretty clear to me that the Israelis are resisting Islamist aggression.

You have heard of the thousands of rockets fired by your Islamist terrorist heroes at Israel, right? It's been on the news.

You have read of the islamo-tunnels being dug by Islamic terrorists in Gaza and extending toward Israel, right? It's been on the news.

In view of the loveliness in the Hamas charter that speaks to killing Jews, rocket fire aimed at Israel, islamo-tunneling and the recent street-stabbing of Jews by your Islamist terrorist heroes, yeah, Israel is resisting Islamist terrorist aggression.

 

[MJB12741]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

Thanks.

It's pretty clear to me that the Israelis are resisting Islamist aggression.

You have heard of the thousands of rockets fired by your Islamist terrorist heroes at Israel, right? It's been on the news.

You have read of the islamo-tunnels being dug by Islamic terrorists in Gaza and extending toward Israel, right? It's been on the news.

In view of the loveliness in the Hamas charter that speaks to killing Jews, rocket fire aimed at Israel, islamo-tunneling and the recent street-stabbing of Jews by your Islamist terrorist heroes, yeah, Israel is resisting Islamist terrorist aggression.

Now now Hollie. Go easy on Monte. You're squeezing his balls here. And the funny part is he keeps coming back for more. Bless him for that.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Will the jew slave Clinton boycott her Church?!
"The divestment petition, or proposed church legislation, states that “Hewlett Packard provides data storage for settlements, manages information technology for the Israeli Navy, and provides biometric monitoring of checkpoints inside the West Bank” and that the church has been asking the company not to support Israeli settlements for years."

United Methodist Church Considers Hewlett Packard Divestment

"Jew slave" Clinton? Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration? She hardly ever mentions Israel at her dozens of interviews and rallies.

 

[montelatici]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

Thanks.

It's pretty clear to me that the Israelis are resisting Islamist aggression.

You have heard of the thousands of rockets fired by your Islamist terrorist heroes at Israel, right? It's been on the news.

You have read of the islamo-tunnels being dug by Islamic terrorists in Gaza and extending toward Israel, right? It's been on the news.

In view of the loveliness in the Hamas charter that speaks to killing Jews, rocket fire aimed at Israel, islamo-tunneling and the recent street-stabbing of Jews by your Islamist terrorist heroes, yeah, Israel is resisting Islamist terrorist aggression.

Now now Hollie. Go easy on Monte. You're squeezing his balls here. And the funny part is he keeps coming back for more. Bless him for that.

Squeezing my balls? God bless you for that. You and Hollow Hollie are quite a team, can't decide which one of you is dumb or dumber. LOL

 

[MJB12741]

The Nazis believed that the French Resistance was resisting illegally.

Not unlike what the islamo-nazis believe about the Israeli resistance.

You are hilarious. Keep it up. It's like the Nazis claiming that they were resisting the French occupation of France. LOL

Thanks.

It's pretty clear to me that the Israelis are resisting Islamist aggression.

You have heard of the thousands of rockets fired by your Islamist terrorist heroes at Israel, right? It's been on the news.

You have read of the islamo-tunnels being dug by Islamic terrorists in Gaza and extending toward Israel, right? It's been on the news.

In view of the loveliness in the Hamas charter that speaks to killing Jews, rocket fire aimed at Israel, islamo-tunneling and the recent street-stabbing of Jews by your Islamist terrorist heroes, yeah, Israel is resisting Islamist terrorist aggression.

Now now Hollie. Go easy on Monte. You're squeezing his balls here. And the funny part is he keeps coming back for more. Bless him for that.

Squeezing my balls? God bless you for that. You and Hollow Hollie are quite a team, can't decide which one of you is dumb or dumber. LOL

Aw gee Monte. Don't take it so hard. Cheer up. Hey, tell us the one about Israel is stealing or occupying Palestinian land.

 

[montelatici]

Oh dear, MJB thinks people from Europe owned land in the Middle East, how funny.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, your line of thought is interesting. The word "owned" is a bit crude; maybe even a bit inaccurate for our discussion.

Oh dear, MJB thinks people from Europe owned land in the Middle East, how funny.

(COMMENT)

Do we even have a word that means "all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories?" In the second and third decades of the 20th Century, a state was a state --- if, and only if, --- it was recognized as sovereign by other states. From 1914 through 1930, the Allied Powers determined statehood in the Middle East. This follows the Constitutive theory of statehood before the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

The Montevideo Convention opened the doors to the declarative theory, where an entity’s statehood became independent of its recognition by other states.

But, in the early part of the 20th Century, especially in the post-War shadow of the Great War, the Allied Powers determined what is and what was --- especially in the Middle East and Mandate territories.

• Article 16 Armistice of Mudros
October 30, 1918, ended the hostilities in the Middle Eastern theatre of war between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies A military administration was established for the whole of Syria and Palestine under the general title of Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) with Palestine as OETA South.

The Treaty of Mudros, signed that evening aboard the British battleship Agamemnon,, stated that hostilities would end at noon the following day. By its terms, Turkey had to open the Dardanelle and Bosporus straits to Allied warships and its forts to military occupation; it was also to demobilize its army, release all prisoners of war and evacuate its Arab provinces, the majority of which were already under Allied control.

16. Surrender of all garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cilicia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause 5.
​

• ARTICLE 132 Treaty of Sevres
August 10, 1920, These Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied Powers;
Whereas on the request of the Imperial Ottoman Government an Armistice was granted to Turkey on October 30, 1918, by the Principal Allied Powers in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded:

Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.
​

• ARTICLE 16 Treaty of Lausanne
July 24, 1923 The Principal Allied Powers of the one part and Turkey of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.
​

(COMMENT)

While it may be said that, in the 21st Century, sovereignty is looked upon more as a legal concept and decided upon like a mathematics problem --- on paper alone; in the early 20th Century the victors of the Great War shaped the world.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

We actually know who owned the land in Palestine. The UN was kind enough to perform a survey of the deeds in 1945 and came up with a map. As you can see about 95% of the land belonged to the native inhabitants.

 

[MJB12741]

We actually know who owned the land in Palestine. The UN was kind enough to perform a survey of the deeds in 1945 and came up with a map. As you can see about 95% of the land belonged to the native inhabitants.

"Native inhabitants"? You mean the Jews?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, this is a very widely used Map, in fact --- overused, that attempts to support the disposition of territory to the various entities. AND if this were relevant and dominate factor to the material evidence used in deliberations made by the UN Special Committee of Palestine, it could even be useful. BUT, it was only a minor piece to the puzzle. Maybe even a discarded piece as trivial.

We actually know who owned the land in Palestine. The UN was kind enough to perform a survey of the deeds in 1945 and came up with a map. As you can see about 95% of the land belonged to the native inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

It is even more trivial today. If the UN were to make the same survey today, using you logic, the Palestinians would probably be awarded even less territory on recommendation.

Remember: To Israelis really don't want the Arab Palestinians (alla 1988) for the same reason that none of the other Arab League Nations wants the Arab Palestinians.

• The Arab Palestinians represent an unproductive burden, and parasitic in nature.

√ The burden on social Programs.

• Primary and Secondary school Education
• Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention Costs.

√ Cost of food assistance programs.
√ Cost of Medical care passed on to taxpayers.
​

There is no Arab League Country that similarly comparable to the Human Development to that of Israel (especially anywhere in the Middle East to the Persian Gulf). And there is no regional nation that expects the Palestinians to positively contribute to their slow but steady progress.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

We actually know who owned the land in Palestine. The UN was kind enough to perform a survey of the deeds in 1945 and came up with a map. As you can see about 95% of the land belonged to the native inhabitants.

"Native inhabitants"? You mean the Jews?

The Jews came from Europe. By definition they cannot be natives of the Middle East. But keep up the comedy act.