Nazism in Israel

[Billo_Really]

You're a liar and an idiot. There ... now disprove that.

First, prove I'm a liar. Or state what I lied about?

You might have me on the idiot part.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

I fuckin' hate his data dumps!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeh, but you shop around for answers.

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Definition of an "Occupation" under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is found in Article 42, of the Hague Convention, 1907. But there are two pointsI would like to make:

Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory (See Page 8 and 10)
Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, ICRC

• (Pg 8) Force might also be used by the occupying power within the framework of its obligation to restore and maintain public order in the occupied territory.

• (Pg 10) The presence of foreign forces: this criterion was considered to be the only way to establish and exert firm control over a foreign territory. It was identified as a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation, notably because it makes the link between the notion of effective control and the ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power. It was also agreed that occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign “boots on the ground” were required.

Under occupation law, the sovereign title relating to the occupied territory does not pass to the occupant, who has, therefore, to preserve as far as possible the status quo ante. In other words, the occupying power must respect, as far as possible, the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory. It is however authorized to make changes where necessary to ensure its own security and to uphold its duties under occupation law, particularly the obligation to restore and maintain public order and safety and the obligation to ensure orderly government in the areas concerned.
​

In July 1980, Israel annex East Jerusalem. This was before the establishment of the State of Palestine, while Jerusalem was still under Jordanian Control. If there was an aggrieved party, it would be the Jordanians. And that grievance was settled by the Peace Treaty.

As for the self defense, that is a case by case basis. Article 68 still applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was never Jordanian land. It is illegal to annex occupied territory. The world considered it occupied Palestinian territory. (How that happened is an interesting question because Jordan and Palestine were not at war.) Israel could not "win" that territory because it was not Jordan's to lose.So now the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied Palestinian territory.

BTW, the right to self defense is an inalienable right. It cannot be illegal to attack foreign troops.

 

[SAYIT]

...Arab armies went in to restore law and order after it was evident Jewish terrorists were taking more land that was allocated to them in the Mandate when British troops vacated the area...

That is Nazi-inspired historical revision at its "best."
Ironically, or tragically from the Arab perspective, the unified Arab invasion of the nascent Jewish Homeland provided both the opportunity and the necessity for Israel to defend herself, exacerbating both the situation and the Arab exodus. By the time of the 1949 armistice, Israel consisted of far more territory than specified in the UN Partition Plan, territory she could not have had without the actions of the Arab World.

I would go further and say Israel could not have survived as an independent state in the 3 small Bantustans envisioned by the Partition Plan and would have become an autonomous Jewish region of Jordan or Syria, Furthermore, without the expulsion of 900,000 Mideast Jews from the Arab World, Israe would have lost her Jewish majority and character decades ago.

In short, the region's Arab are fully to blame for the "plight" of those hapless Arab "refugees."

 

[SAYIT]

Billo_Really, et al,

All nations of the world with sovereignty have the right to control immigration and establish border controls. Israel is no exception.

Billo_Really, et al,

Are you sure.

It's not wrong at all. It's right on the money. Although you're right about it being the same God, that doesn't do you any good when you are Arab living in the "Jewish State".

(COMMENT)

I would be interested in knowing what the Israeli's of Arab Ancestry describe themselves as? Not long ago, I was attending a fraternal meeting of retired members of my profession, and was politely corrected when I referred to them as Israel-Palestinians; informed that the correct term is Arab-Israeli. Somewhat embarrassed, I listened more than I spoke.

What do the Israeli's of Arab Ancestry refer to themselves as in Israel??? Do they prefer to live under the same standard of living as Palestine (west Bank & Gaza) or Jordan?
Do the Israeli's of Arab Ancestry prefer living under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority or HAMAS?

Most Respectfully,
R

I'd like to know why Jews from all over the world can come to Israel, but Palestinian's who were driven out of the area (when Israel declared itself a state), cannot come back?

(COMMENT)

Since 1920 (San Remo Convention), there has been a goal and objective to establish a "Jewish National Home." It is a place of refuge and protection from hostile cultures and political systems with extremist ideologies that would present a continuous threat to the Jewish People. Among these hostile cultures are the Arab Palestinians that have taken a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. This threat culture and hostile political system consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. They have expressed the position that there no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Iran and Syria continue to support the most active Hostile Arab-Palestinian Groups, the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Iran also sponsors Lebanese Hezbollah.

It is unreasonable to assume that any country, let alone the target country for every Palestinian Terrorist, Insurgent, and Militant would open its borders to the very threat for which the Jewish National Home was created to protect against.

Most Respectfully,
R

Among these hostile cultures are the Arab Palestinians that have taken a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​

What was it that they wanted to partition again?

An unincorporated region of the Mideast lost to the Brits and French during WW1.
The very thought that the region's Jews should have an independent state - albeit 3 small blobs of mostly desert and swamps which included none of Jerusalem - seemingly drove their Arab neighbors so batshit crazy they were and remain willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

That's the real tragedy.

 

[SAYIT]

If there is no apartheid, then why are there no Arab communities in the Negev desert where they are the majority population?

South African on apartheid:

A Black South African on Israel and Apartheid

 

[SAYIT]

You're a liar and an idiot. There ... now disprove that.

First, prove I'm a liar. Or state what I lied about?

You might have me on the idiot part.

Why? The author of your opinion piece did not prove Israel is an apartheid state - he just made the claim - yet you accept that camel crap as "word." My claim is far more valid than any he made and yeah ... we agree on the idiot part.

 

[SAYIT]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeh, but you shop around for answers.

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Definition of an "Occupation" under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is found in Article 42, of the Hague Convention, 1907. But there are two pointsI would like to make:

Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory (See Page 8 and 10)
Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, ICRC

• (Pg 8) Force might also be used by the occupying power within the framework of its obligation to restore and maintain public order in the occupied territory.

• (Pg 10) The presence of foreign forces: this criterion was considered to be the only way to establish and exert firm control over a foreign territory. It was identified as a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation, notably because it makes the link between the notion of effective control and the ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power. It was also agreed that occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign “boots on the ground” were required.

Under occupation law, the sovereign title relating to the occupied territory does not pass to the occupant, who has, therefore, to preserve as far as possible the status quo ante. In other words, the occupying power must respect, as far as possible, the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory. It is however authorized to make changes where necessary to ensure its own security and to uphold its duties under occupation law, particularly the obligation to restore and maintain public order and safety and the obligation to ensure orderly government in the areas concerned.
​

In July 1980, Israel annex East Jerusalem. This was before the establishment of the State of Palestine, while Jerusalem was still under Jordanian Control. If there was an aggrieved party, it would be the Jordanians. And that grievance was settled by the Peace Treaty.

As for the self defense, that is a case by case basis. Article 68 still applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was never Jordanian land. It is illegal to annex occupied territory...

It is illegal to annex the territory of another country (but you knew that).
The region known as Palestine is and never has been a recognized country (but you knew that, too).
Never.

 

[Daniyel]

Try me, open a new thread describing specifically all the material made you come up with your conclusion including decisive facts.

No. You address the claim made in the OP. If you're too pussy to do that, then lets see if you have the stones to answer the following questions:

Why do you treat the Palestinian's like garbage?
Why do you trash them 24/7?
Why do you accept any kind of violence done to them?​

Back to you!

Do you really think so?

 

[SAYIT]

No it's funny how you're dying to blame others for your own shadow/hatred.

What does that have to do with the Pals being treated like garbage? And why can't you talk about the Pals being treated like garbage?

Despite your opinion, the vast majority of Israeli Arabs stay because life for them is waaaay better than it would be in virtually any Arab/Muslim country.

"As an East Jerusalem resident, I am struck by a recent trend: many of my friends and acquaintances who hold Jerusalem identification cards – documents of permanent residency rather than Israeli citizenship – are quietly applying for and obtaining Israeli passports.

It’s not immediately clear why. Current residents of East Jerusalem – numbering over 350,000, or 38% of the city’s total population – already go about their daily lives, shop at Israeli malls, use Israeli services, frequent Israeli restaurants and bars, send their children to study at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and receive Israeli social and health benefits. What does 'upgrading their status' from East Jerusalem residents to citizens of Israel add? Why did East Jerusalem residents refuse the Israeli offer of citizenship in 1967, and why are they actively seeking to obtain it now, especially given that citizenship requires them to pledge the controversial oath of allegiance to the Israeli state?"

Quietly, East Jerusalem Palestinians acquiring Israeli citizenship | +972 Magazine

 

[Billo_Really]

That is Nazi-inspired historical revision at its "best."
Ironically, or tragically from the Arab perspective, the unified Arab invasion of the nascent Jewish Homeland provided both the opportunity and the necessity for Israel to defend herself, exacerbating both the situation and the Arab exodus.

If Jewish terrorist groups didn't take land that wasn't theirs, there would've been no Arab invasion.

According to UN records...

Zionist policies of territorial expansion

As the British Government progressively disengaged from Palestine, and the United Nations was unable to replace it as an effective governing authority, the Zionist movement moved to establish control over the territory of the nascent Jewish State. At the same time the bordering Arab States made clear that they would intervene.

From writings of Zionist leaders, it is evident that Zionist policy was to occupy, during the period of withdrawal, as much territory as possible (including the "West Bank") beyond the boundaries assigned to the Jewish State by the partition resolution. ​

Now that we established you are full of shit, why do you treat the Pals like garbage?

By the time of the 1949 armistice, Israel consisted of far more territory than specified in the UN Partition Plan, territory she could not have had without the actions of the Arab World.

God-damn, you stupid bitch, you just agreed with what I was saying!

I would go further and say Israel could not have survived as an independent state in the 3 small Bantustans envisioned by the Partition Plan and would have become an autonomous Jewish region of Jordan or Syria, Furthermore, without the expulsion of 900,000 Mideast Jews from the Arab World, Israe would have lost her Jewish majority and character decades ago.

Oh shut-up, you're just spewing gibberish now.

In short, the region's Arab are fully to blame for the "plight" of those hapless Arab "refugees."

That proves another point of my OP.

The Pals are blamed for all the problems
(just like the Nazis blamed the Jews)​

 

[Billo_Really]

Do you really think so?

So, you're not even man enough to answer a direct question? Do you sit down when you pee, as well?

Gratuitous zone 2 compliance:
Why do you trash the Pals 24/7?

 

[Billo_Really]

It is illegal to annex the territory of another country (but you knew that).
The region known as Palestine is and never has been a recognized country (but you knew that, too).
Never.

Wrong!

It is illegal to annex territory you have no clear title to.

It doesn't matter if it is a country or not.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why? The author of your opinion piece did not prove Israel is an apartheid state - he just made the claim - yet you accept that camel crap as "word." My claim is far more valid than any he made and yeah ... we agree on the idiot part.

He wasn't trying to prove apartheid, you stupid bitch!

He was saying your hatred of the Pals, is the same hatred the Nazis had towards the Jews and you fucking know it!

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeh, but you shop around for answers.

Oh jeese, Rocco, my posts are starting to look like yours.

Let's not forget that the Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves and aggression against them is illegal.

(COMMENT)

I agree, the Definition of an "Occupation" under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is found in Article 42, of the Hague Convention, 1907. But there are two pointsI would like to make:

Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory (See Page 8 and 10)
Report prepared and edited by Tristan Ferraro Legal adviser, ICRC

• (Pg 8) Force might also be used by the occupying power within the framework of its obligation to restore and maintain public order in the occupied territory.

• (Pg 10) The presence of foreign forces: this criterion was considered to be the only way to establish and exert firm control over a foreign territory. It was identified as a prerequisite for the establishment of an occupation, notably because it makes the link between the notion of effective control and the ability to fulfil the obligations incumbent upon the occupying power. It was also agreed that occupation could not be established or maintained solely through the exercise of power from beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory; a certain number of foreign “boots on the ground” were required.

Under occupation law, the sovereign title relating to the occupied territory does not pass to the occupant, who has, therefore, to preserve as far as possible the status quo ante. In other words, the occupying power must respect, as far as possible, the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory. It is however authorized to make changes where necessary to ensure its own security and to uphold its duties under occupation law, particularly the obligation to restore and maintain public order and safety and the obligation to ensure orderly government in the areas concerned.
​

In July 1980, Israel annex East Jerusalem. This was before the establishment of the State of Palestine, while Jerusalem was still under Jordanian Control. If there was an aggrieved party, it would be the Jordanians. And that grievance was settled by the Peace Treaty.

As for the self defense, that is a case by case basis. Article 68 still applies.

Most Respectfully,
R

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, was never Jordanian land. It is illegal to annex occupied territory...

It is illegal to annex the territory of another country (but you knew that).
The region known as Palestine is and never has been a recognized country (but you knew that, too).
Never.

The West Bank and Gaza have been considered by the world to be occupied since 1948.

Who told you that? You must have been misinformed.

 

[Daniyel]

Do you really think so?

So, you're not even man enough to answer a direct question? Do you sit down when you pee, as well?

Gratuitous zone 2 compliance:
Why do you trash the Pals 24/7?

Ad hominem is not a valid rebuttal so I will ask again, do you really think so?

 

[rylah]

No it's funny how you're dying to blame others for your own shadow/hatred.

What does that have to do with the Pals being treated like garbage? And why can't you talk about the Pals being treated like garbage? Just how big of a pussy are you?

As far as your accusation, just whom do I hate and why do I hate them?

And yes you're a parrot, you've showed in every way your ignorance and lack of basic knowledge of the ME.

Care to explain that one in a little more detail?

Or are bullshit innuendo's as far as you go?

Why You hate? Out of fear or hurt maybe. But that's Yours.
Who do You hate? Everyone who seems to You to be violent unjustified, in Your opinion- especially the Palis and Israelis.

"Fuck Hamas and fuck Israel! Fuck both of them and fuck you!
I could care less about either side."

"Fuck Israel!
That country should be barbecued with nuclear weapons."

"Just another example of Israeli aggression.
Someone should barbecue that country.
Fuck Israel!"

"Fuck Canada! Fuck Israel!"

"There's nothing to negotiate, asswipe!
Just get the fuck off land that isn't yours!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that's not enough, You also neglect the clear open signs:

 

[rylah]

It is illegal to annex the territory of another country (but you knew that).
The region known as Palestine is and never has been a recognized country (but you knew that, too).
Never.

Wrong!

It is illegal to annex territory you have no clear title to.

It doesn't matter if it is a country or not.

Jews have legal title to Palestine.

 

[Billo_Really]

Ad hominem is not a valid rebuttal so I will ask again, do you really think so?

Of coarse I do. I also explained why it isn't.

You're playing word games.

 

[Billo_Really]

Jews have legal title to Palestine.

Just to some of it. You don't have title to the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.