Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people

[Ecocertifmrl]

However, it also now seems that Israel will continue to establish settlements as a means of pressure to bring the Arab Palestinian Leadership to the table.

Israel at least last 20 years doesn't establish new settlements in the West bank.

What?

Which words in my post you did not understand?

No offence, but I don't read all your posts..

 

[P F Tinmore]

are attempts to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. There is no true domination or oppression.

Does stealing land and shooting those who protest ensure public order and safety?

Where do You find this in the law?

That was exactly the Arab choice, now they play dumb about the reason Palestinian Jews got arms and a state.

It is illegal for an occupying power to steal or destroy property in the occupied territory.

Look it up.

 

[rylah]

are attempts to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. There is no true domination or oppression.

Does stealing land and shooting those who protest ensure public order and safety?

Where do You find this in the law?

That was exactly the Arab choice, now they play dumb about the reason Palestinian Jews got arms and a state.

It is illegal for an occupying power to steal or destroy property in the occupied territory.

Look it up.

Where do You find this in the given law?

 

[P F Tinmore]

are attempts to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety. There is no true domination or oppression.

Does stealing land and shooting those who protest ensure public order and safety?

Where do You find this in the law?

That was exactly the Arab choice, now they play dumb about the reason Palestinian Jews got arms and a state.

It is illegal for an occupying power to steal or destroy property in the occupied territory.

Look it up.

Where do You find this in the given law?

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

Private property cannot be confiscated.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/law9_final.pdf

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

 

[Mindful]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al

I believe that our friend PF Tinmore is referring to Rule #50 • Customary and International Humanitarian Law → The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

• Article 50 First Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• Article 51 Second Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• Article 147 Fourth Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xiii)

Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;​

It is illegal for an occupying power to steal or destroy property in the occupied territory.
Look it up.

Where do You find this in the given law?

(COMMENT)

Having said that, you must take into consideration three points:

✪ Each source reference is not hard and fast. Each states that such destruction and appropriation of property is allowed when imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
✪ It is generally understood that such destruction of appropriation of property is allowed when such property was used to:

• To harm the Occupying Power,
• To seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations of the Occupying Power,
• In cases of espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or in cases of intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

✪ Since the turn of the 20th Century, may nations recognize that the Ocupying Power (like most governments) have the authority to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character. The matter of payment or just compensation to the owner of that property is a matter of domenstic law. Members of the UN understand that the members shall NOT intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

Arab Palestinians are not defending themselves. They are trying, through terrorism and other illegal and immoral means, to deny Jewish Palestinians sovereignty and self-determination in the homeland of the Jewish people and trying to re-conquer land which has been restored to the original owners.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, get off your high horse.

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are just trying OH so desperately to twist the law to support their Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The HoAP are NOT attempting to defend themselves, and they have never been. They are attempting by hook or crook to intimidate and coerce the Israelis into surrendering their sovereignty. (I don't see that happening in my life time.)

The HoAP are not defending themselves, any more than the violence of the "Islamic State" is a defensive measure.

In fact, since the turn into the 21st Century, I have not seen a single act of major violence - in the sense of recognized Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict where the confrontation was not triggered by the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al

I believe that our friend PF Tinmore is referring to Rule #50 • Customary and International Humanitarian Law → The destruction or seizure of the property of an adversary is prohibited, unless required by imperative military necessity.

• Article 50 First Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• Article 51 Second Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• Article 147 Fourth Geneva Convention

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.​

• ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xiii)

Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;​

It is illegal for an occupying power to steal or destroy property in the occupied territory.
Look it up.

Where do You find this in the given law?

(COMMENT)

Having said that, you must take into consideration three points:

✪ Each source reference is not hard and fast. Each states that such destruction and appropriation of property is allowed when imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.
✪ It is generally understood that such destruction of appropriation of property is allowed when such property was used to:

• To harm the Occupying Power,
• To seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations of the Occupying Power,
• In cases of espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or in cases of intentional acts which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

✪ Since the turn of the 20th Century, may nations recognize that the Ocupying Power (like most governments) have the authority to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character. The matter of payment or just compensation to the owner of that property is a matter of domenstic law. Members of the UN understand that the members shall NOT intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, and?

How does that refute my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, get off your high horse.

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are just trying OH so desperately to twist the law to support their Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The HoAP are NOT attempting to defend themselves, and they have never been. They are attempting by hook or crook to intimidate and coerce the Israelis into surrendering their sovereignty. (I don't see that happening in my life time.)

The HoAP are not defending themselves, any more than the violence of the "Islamic State" is a defensive measure.

In fact, since the turn into the 21st Century, I have not seen a single act of major violence - in the sense of recognized Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict where the confrontation was not triggered by the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

You forget that the Palestinians only operate inside their own international borders.

 

[admonit]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

What your BS has to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[Shusha]

You forget that the Palestinians only operate inside their own international borders.

Sure. Both the Arab Palestinians and the Jewish Palestinians are operating within the international borders of "Palestine" (now called Israel). Its a civil war. With the Arabs attempting to force the Jews to surrender their sovereignty.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

What your BS has to do with the subject of this thread?

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, get off your high horse.

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are just trying OH so desperately to twist the law to support their Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The HoAP are NOT attempting to defend themselves, and they have never been. They are attempting by hook or crook to intimidate and coerce the Israelis into surrendering their sovereignty. (I don't see that happening in my life time.)

The HoAP are not defending themselves, any more than the violence of the "Islamic State" is a defensive measure.

In fact, since the turn into the 21st Century, I have not seen a single act of major violence - in the sense of recognized Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict where the confrontation was not triggered by the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

You forget that the Palestinians only operate inside their own international borders.

You mean armistice lines?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

Article 7 (1j), Elements of Crimes, International Criminal Court
Crime against humanity of apartheid
Elements
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.
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.

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

What your BS has to do with the subject of this thread?

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, get off your high horse.

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are just trying OH so desperately to twist the law to support their Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The HoAP are NOT attempting to defend themselves, and they have never been. They are attempting by hook or crook to intimidate and coerce the Israelis into surrendering their sovereignty. (I don't see that happening in my life time.)

The HoAP are not defending themselves, any more than the violence of the "Islamic State" is a defensive measure.

In fact, since the turn into the 21st Century, I have not seen a single act of major violence - in the sense of recognized Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict where the confrontation was not triggered by the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

You forget that the Palestinians only operate inside their own international borders.

You mean armistice lines?

No.

 

[Mindful]

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, your cognitive skills and eyesight are bad; quite bad!

This fits Israel to a T.

(COMMENT)

• There is no institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians one that opposes provide direct support for Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is about the defense of Israeli sovereignty and territorial integrity against the state supported apparatus of terrorism.
• The conflict between Israel and the Hostile Arab Palestinians is a conflict against a quasi-State (Palestine) and its open attempt to incite regional violence.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians intended to maintain and further spread such regime by Armed struggle until the entirety of the territory with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate dominated by the Hostile Arab Palestinians.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians have, for the last 50 years, launched thousands and thousands of attacks directly against the Israeli citizenry and then → glorified the terrorists that slaughtered the woment and children. And such attacks are still happening today.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a Israeli civilian population.
• The Hostile Arab Palestinians knew that the conduct of such attacks were not in keeping with the Customary and International Humanitarian Law.​

Now the Hostile Arab Palestinians know that the State of Israel did not assume any control over any territory that was under the sovereign control of any Arab Palestinian regime.

Most Respectfully,
R



Most Respectfully,
R

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

What your BS has to do with the subject of this thread?

RE: Now it's a basic law: The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, get off your high horse.

What does all that verbosity have to do with the Palestinians defending themselves?

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are just trying OH so desperately to twist the law to support their Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. The HoAP are NOT attempting to defend themselves, and they have never been. They are attempting by hook or crook to intimidate and coerce the Israelis into surrendering their sovereignty. (I don't see that happening in my life time.)

The HoAP are not defending themselves, any more than the violence of the "Islamic State" is a defensive measure.

In fact, since the turn into the 21st Century, I have not seen a single act of major violence - in the sense of recognized Israeli - Arab Palestinian Conflict where the confrontation was not triggered by the Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

You forget that the Palestinians only operate inside their own international borders.

You mean armistice lines?

No.

Well you wouldn't, would you? lol.

 

[Coyote]

Who are we to judge the reality of the fears though? Do all the Palestinians really want to kill all the Jews? Do the Jews really want all the land for themselves? In the end it is what people believe that matters, whether it's real or not. For example the Palestinians see Jewish settlements popping up in areas they feel are for their own future state. They see moratoriums on settlement expansion constantly flouted. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant, it's the perception being fed that Israel really wants all the real estate for Jews that then feeds the fears that there will be no room for them. Likewise, actual attacks on Jews from Palestinians reinforce their belief that Palestinians seek their eradication. How real are each one's fears depends on where you stand and what you have to lose.

Respecting people's irrational fears leads us nowhere. Irrational fears need to be addressed, not fed. How real one's fears are depends ONLY on the actions of the people whom you are afraid of.

As an example -- what is the "fear' with Jewish people living in a place? Why can't Jewish people live in a future State of Palestine? Where is the "fear" in having Jewish people live in Palestine. Israel can do it. Why can't Palestine. So, objectively, is that a rational fear or an irrational fear?

The fear is there because that is not how they see events unfolding and there is some legitimacy in those fears. Land loss and confiscations through absentee landowner laws look VERY DIFFERENT to an Arab than to a Jew. Where as Israeli Jews are seeing a society where Arab citizens have the same “rights” as Jews, Arabs see a society where they are discriminated against, despised, do not have the same land rights. They have seen some of their political parties banned, make a fraction of the income their Jewish counterparts do and receive a fraction of the investment in their communities but by the Israeli government. Are the fears really irrational? I don’t think so.

 

[Coyote]

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that all Palestinian fears are irrational. But I am saying it is fair to evaluate those fears against reality.

For example, Gazans can say that they fear Israeli military attacks, but the reality is that unless they provoke those attacks, they are perfectly safe from them. They just don't happen without provocation.

I answered before seeing this post ( the downfall of reading and answering one at a time). It is good to evaluate against reality, and your example is a good one. But a lot of fears on both sides are hard to measure in that way because they are far from clear and involve people’s motivations, which are murky at best.

 

[Coyote]

Do all the Palestinians really want to kill all the Jews? Do the Jews really want all the land for themselves?

But look at what you just typed. Jews are afraid of being murdered (and historically, legitimate fear, yes?) while Arabs are afraid they won't get another State or two. The discrepancy there is point enough.

I think the fear is not getting a state so much as a home. They see themselves increasingly marginalized, squeezed and eventually run of the land they regard as theirs. They see increased government supported settlements for Jews (not for Arabs) as evidence.