Palestine Today

[rylah]

More Israeli lies.

Those tunnels have never been used to attack civilians. They have only been used for legitimate defense.

Is that why these tunnels lead directly to civilians?

Again you're confusing the Jihadi rats' FAILURE to attack civilians from the tunnels,
after being neutralized, with not being used for attempts to fulfill that purpose.

The Palestinians never experience quiet. They suffer occupation 24/7.

Well that's rich...

Since the word 'Palestinians' in itself means 'Occupiers',
that's like fish complaining about water being wet.

Utter junk that the Palestinians are occupiers. You sound like one of those crazy settler types on speed

That's literally the meaning of the 'Palestinians' = 'Occupiers'.

Is there any other meaning?
Feel free to refute that.

Spartacactcus I'm waiting...
But I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, maybe you can also explain how come those who claim 'Palestine' is theirs,
can't even pronounce the word, let alone know its meaning?

You're waiting for what? For me to agree that the Palestinians are "occupiers "of their own territory ? lol Ain't gonna happen.

I am not trying to avoid you, I am just working my way through Roccos long winded reply from earlier.

Asked for a simple thing -
the proof that 'Palestinian' had any other meaning other than 'Occupier'.

If you can't simply say so,
instead of dancing around show at least some integrity.

 

[Spartacactcus]

The 48 war is irrelevant to the question of Israeli violations of the sovereign territories of Lebanon and Syria. Your insistance on plugging away at this is troublesome to your claim of objectivity imo

The 1948 Arab/Israeli war is entirely relevant. Why? Because the state of war between Syria and Israel has not ended or been resolved. It is on-going. The belligerent action which started that war was Syria leaving its own sovereign territory and attacking another's sovereignty in another's sovereign territory. That would be Israel.

A state of war exists between Syria and Israel. Because of this, the actions of Israel are dictated by defensive military considerations.

Another poster who thinks that only Israeli sovereign territory is sacred and not to be violated ? lol

Syria had it's own border, as has Lebanon and they have FA to do with the armistice lines drawn up after the 48 war.

Most of the crimes of states are allegedly built on " defensive military considerations " it still doesn't change the fact that Israel is the worst violator of sovereign territory in the region. For those that cry about violations of Israeli territory , as you no doubt have, the level of hypocrisy is staggering

 

[Spartacactcus]

More Israeli lies.

Those tunnels have never been used to attack civilians. They have only been used for legitimate defense.

Is that why these tunnels lead directly to civilians?

Again you're confusing the Jihadi rats' FAILURE to attack civilians from the tunnels,
after being neutralized, with not being used for attempts to fulfill that purpose.

The Palestinians never experience quiet. They suffer occupation 24/7.

Well that's rich...

Since the word 'Palestinians' in itself means 'Occupiers',
that's like fish complaining about water being wet.

Utter junk that the Palestinians are occupiers. You sound like one of those crazy settler types on speed

That's literally the meaning of the 'Palestinians' = 'Occupiers'.

Is there any other meaning?
Feel free to refute that.

Spartacactcus I'm waiting...
But I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, maybe you can also explain how come those who claim 'Palestine' is theirs,
can't even pronounce the word, let alone know its meaning?

You're waiting for what? For me to agree that the Palestinians are "occupiers "of their own territory ? lol Ain't gonna happen.

I am not trying to avoid you, I am just working my way through Roccos long winded reply from earlier.

Didn't ask for agreement or disagreement.
Merely asked for a proof that 'Palestinian' had any other meaning other than 'Occupiers'.

If you can't simply say so,
at least stop dancing around and show some integrity.

Don't accuse me of having any integrity when you are constantly dancing on the graves of and violations of the Palestinians and probably waxing lyrical about how you are morally superior.

The Palestinians are the people that make up the future residents of the Palestinian state and the diaspora that fled or was forced out by Israel in both 48 and 67.

The entire world sees the Israeli occupation of Palestine for what it is and it's only the US veto that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus to settle the conflict on the 67 lines on a two state basis

 

[rylah]

More Israeli lies.

Those tunnels have never been used to attack civilians. They have only been used for legitimate defense.

Is that why these tunnels lead directly to civilians?

Again you're confusing the Jihadi rats' FAILURE to attack civilians from the tunnels,
after being neutralized, with not being used for attempts to fulfill that purpose.

The Palestinians never experience quiet. They suffer occupation 24/7.

Well that's rich...

Since the word 'Palestinians' in itself means 'Occupiers',
that's like fish complaining about water being wet.

Utter junk that the Palestinians are occupiers. You sound like one of those crazy settler types on speed

That's literally the meaning of the 'Palestinians' = 'Occupiers'.

Is there any other meaning?
Feel free to refute that.

Spartacactcus I'm waiting...
But I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, maybe you can also explain how come those who claim 'Palestine' is theirs,
can't even pronounce the word, let alone know its meaning?

You're waiting for what? For me to agree that the Palestinians are "occupiers "of their own territory ? lol Ain't gonna happen.

I am not trying to avoid you, I am just working my way through Roccos long winded reply from earlier.

Didn't ask for agreement or disagreement.
Merely asked for a proof that 'Palestinian' had any other meaning other than 'Occupiers'.

If you can't simply say so,
at least stop dancing around and show some integrity.

Don't accuse me of having any integrity when you are constantly dancing on the graves of and violations of the Palestinians and probably waxing lyrical about how you are morally superior.

The Palestinians are the people that make up the future residents of the Palestinian state and the diaspora that fled or was forced out by Israel in both 48 and 67.

The entire world sees the Israeli occupation of Palestine for what it is and it's only the US veto that has stopped the overwhelming world consensus to settle the conflict on the 67 lines on a two state basis

"The entire world"...
Typical none sense.

And for some reason you still can't refute what I said.
Should be easy, don't you think, why is that?

And while we're there...

Q. Do you know any people who claim custody over children
who's name they can't even pronounce?

 

[rylah]

Gaza riot!

The Hamas chief says you're full of sh*t,
and thanks you for being an exemplary useful idiot -

 

[Shusha]

The 48 war is irrelevant to the question of Israeli violations of the sovereign territories of Lebanon and Syria. Your insistance on plugging away at this is troublesome to your claim of objectivity imo

The 1948 Arab/Israeli war is entirely relevant. Why? Because the state of war between Syria and Israel has not ended or been resolved. It is on-going. The belligerent action which started that war was Syria leaving its own sovereign territory and attacking another's sovereignty in another's sovereign territory. That would be Israel.

A state of war exists between Syria and Israel. Because of this, the actions of Israel are dictated by defensive military considerations.

Another poster who thinks that only Israeli sovereign territory is sacred and not to be violated ? lol

Syria had it's own border, as has Lebanon and they have FA to do with the armistice lines drawn up after the 48 war.

Most of the crimes of states are allegedly built on " defensive military considerations " it still doesn't change the fact that Israel is the worst violator of sovereign territory in the region. For those that cry about violations of Israeli territory , as you no doubt have, the level of hypocrisy is staggering

When a State violates territory which does not belong to it, they and only they, are responsible for the consequences of those actions. You are trying to argue that Syria's belligerent violations of Israeli sovereignty must be responded to without military consideration.

It is a ridiculous argument.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Spartacactcus, et al,

I'm sorry you don't appreciate my format. In the mixed challenge by you (or anyone else) my reply response and reaction format (a commentary) brings up one issue at a time and responds to each issue as it comes up. I identify your point and react to it. If you address apples and oranges, I will split them apart and address them separately. If you address apple stems and the apple skin, I will address them separately since they have difference functions.

Whether or not members of the discussion group read my response and reaction is immaterial. If they do not want to avail themselves of the point-of-view, then so be it. I present my perspective and the reasons why (usually by reference to something authoritative) I reacted in a particular way and move on.

This is because I don't expect to change your mind. As an example, I presented the IHL as to why the Arab Palestinians should be punished (Article 68), yet you still seem to think it is legitimate. Once I present the authoritative citation and you ignore its application, then what more needs to be said? (RHETORICAL)


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The 48 war is irrelevant to the question of Israeli violations of the sovereign territories of Lebanon and Syria. Your insistance on plugging away at this is troublesome to your claim of objectivity imo

The 1948 Arab/Israeli war is entirely relevant. Why? Because the state of war between Syria and Israel has not ended or been resolved. It is on-going. The belligerent action which started that war was Syria leaving its own sovereign territory and attacking another's sovereignty in another's sovereign territory. That would be Israel.

A state of war exists between Syria and Israel. Because of this, the actions of Israel are dictated by defensive military considerations.

A state of war exists between Syria and Israel.

Why? Syria did not attack Israel in 1948.

 

[Shusha]

Why? Syria did not attack Israel in 1948.

Yes. She did. She crossed out of the territory of her sovereignty and attacked the newly declared independent and self-governing State of Israel which represented the self-determination and RE-constitution of the Jewish Nation.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, Spartacactcus, et al,
(COMMENT)

As I see it, the Arab League Forces from neighboring Arab States entered Article 77 Trust Territory using the excuse that it was necessary to assist the (unarmed) Arab Palestinians from being attacked by Jewish irregular asymmetric forces. The neighboring Arab States, using force, entered the territory to protect the Arab Palestinians. The Arab League Forces claimed that they engaged Jewish terrorist gangs trained in Europe → intending to impose the will of the newly established Israeli Government upon an unwilling Arab Palestinian population. However, a hidden agenda soon appeared when some of the neighboring Arab States took effective control over large areas of the Trust Territory and later either annexed them (as in the West Bank) or placed them under a Military Governorship (as in the Gaza Strip). The outcome looked as if the actual intent of the coordinated attack was to use the chaos of the conflict to seize as much territory as possible (if not all) with the latent operational purpose of extending their sovereign control. In some areas, the Arab League Forces made gains (West Bank and Gaza Strip) while in other areas no significant gains (Lebanese and Syrian border areas).

As might have been expected, the pro-Israel and pro-Arab Palestinians perspectives emerged; each side adopting the stance that you were either for us or against us position. The Arab Palestinians were dominated by the Arab League and had reject overtures to (once again) establish their own Arab State. And consequently, absorb under a foreign Arab rule. By the same token, the Jewish Agency accepted what they could and on 11 May 1949, Israel's efforts under self-determination came to fruition and Israel became a Member of the United Nations.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, Spartacactcus, et al,
(COMMENT)

As I see it, the Arab League Forces from neighboring Arab States entered Article 77 Trust Territory using the excuse that it was necessary to assist the (unarmed) Arab Palestinians from being attacked by Jewish irregular asymmetric forces. The neighboring Arab States, using force, entered the territory to protect the Arab Palestinians. The Arab League Forces claimed that they engaged Jewish terrorist gangs trained in Europe → intending to impose the will of the newly established Israeli Government upon an unwilling Arab Palestinian population. However, a hidden agenda soon appeared when some of the neighboring Arab States took effective control over large areas of the Trust Territory and later either annexed them (as in the West Bank) or placed them under a Military Governorship (as in the Gaza Strip). The outcome looked as if the actual intent of the coordinated attack was to use the chaos of the conflict to seize as much territory as possible (if not all) with the latent operational purpose of extending their sovereign control. In some areas, the Arab League Forces made gains (West Bank and Gaza Strip) while in other areas no significant gains (Lebanese and Syrian border areas).

As might have been expected, the pro-Israel and pro-Arab Palestinians perspectives emerged; each side adopting the stance that you were either for us or against us position. The Arab Palestinians were dominated by the Arab League and had reject overtures to (once again) establish their own Arab State. And consequently, absorb under a foreign Arab rule. By the same token, the Jewish Agency accepted what they could and on 11 May 1949, Israel's efforts under self-determination came to fruition and Israel became a Member of the United Nations.



Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that none of those Arab armies attacked Israel. Glub Pasha called the 1948 war the war that wasn't.

Lebanon had virtually no army. Maybe a few thousand troops. They could barely defend their own border. That was the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. So even if they did cross the border, they crossed into Palestine not Israel.

Syria was a little stronger. They did manage to cross the international border between Syria and Palestine for a brief period then moved back into Syria. Here again, they entered Palestine not Israel.

Jordan was a different case. They believed in the partition plan. The Zionists promised to give Jordan the Arab part of the territory (The West Bank) and $3,000,000 a year for five years if they did not attack Israeli troops. Here again, they entered Palestine not Israel.

Egypt crossed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Here again, they did not enter Israel. They did, however, prevent Israeli forces from Occupying the Gaza Strip.

All this for the UN to divide Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949 with armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Bo Didleysquat]

More Israeli lies.

Those tunnels have never been used to attack civilians. They have only been used for legitimate defense.

Is that why these tunnels lead directly to civilians?

Again you're confusing the Jihadi rats' FAILURE to attack civilians from the tunnels,
after being neutralized, with not being used for attempts to fulfill that purpose.

The Palestinians never experience quiet. They suffer occupation 24/7.

Well that's rich...

Since the word 'Palestinians' in itself means 'Occupiers',
that's like fish complaining about water being wet.

Utter junk that the Palestinians are occupiers. You sound like one of those crazy settler types on speed

That's literally the meaning of the 'Palestinians' = 'Occupiers'.

Is there any other meaning?
Feel free to refute that.

Spartacactcus I'm waiting...
But I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, maybe you can also explain how come those who claim 'Palestine' is theirs,
can't even pronounce the word, let alone know its meaning?

You're waiting for what? For me to agree that the Palestinians are "occupiers "of their own territory ? lol Ain't gonna happen.

I am not trying to avoid you, I am just working my way through Roccos long winded reply from earlier.

Asked for a simple thing -
the proof that 'Palestinian' had any other meaning other than 'Occupier'.

If you can't simply say so,
instead of dancing around show at least some integrity.

Who is occupying, oppressing and cleansing whom? Israel is an apartheid state engaged in ethnic cleansing. A savage rogue authoritarian state.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF:

In February both Britain and Transjordan pinned their hopes for a satisfactory resolution to the Palestine problem on Glubb and the Arab Legion occupying central Palestine with the tacit acquiescence of the Zionists. It was not expected, however, that the end of the mandate would descend into a full-blown war involving the regular armies of the neighbouring Arab states. Not until the final week of the mandate did this become certain, and at midnight on 14/15 May, when the British mandate ended, the Arab Legion marched across the Allenby Bridge as part of the invading Arab coalition, ostensibly to prevent the creation of a Jewish state and to facilitate the creation of an independent Arab Palestine. 1 Yet when the war came to an effective end in 1949 with the signing of a series of bilateral armistice agreements between Israel and the Arab states, the Greater Transjordan objective had largely reached fruition [ Map 5 ]. The Arab Legion controlled the bulk of central Palestine allotted to the Arabs under the UN partition resolution. Thus, two states – two apparent enemies – emerged from the war territorially victorious.

SOURCE: Page 89 • Glubb Pasha and the Arab Legion -​

Britain, Jordan, and the End of Empire in the Middle East​

​

NOTE: Glubb Pasha = Lieutenant-General Sir John Glubb, Commanding the Arab Legion (Jordanian Army)

​

The bottom line is that none of those Arab armies attacked Israel. Glub Pasha called the 1948 war the war that wasn't.

(COMMENT)

Like I said before, the parameters of a "war" are undefine; both politically and militarily. It is not an exact term. When LTG Glubb says "war," he may be making a comparison to the Great War, or WWII. So you actually make no point here with LTG Glubb comment. In Glubb's mind, how big does an Armed Engagement have to be to qualify as a war? (RHETORICAL) We simply don't know.

Whether you want to call it a "war" or not - is up to you (quibble over the term). What we do know is that armed Arab Forces engaged Israel armed forces. When 7.62mm is whistling over your head, you don't stop and think about what war means.

One more thing, the decisive victory relating to the 1948 War of Independence for the Israels was not reached until the 1973 Yom Kipper War concluded.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

More Israeli lies.

Those tunnels have never been used to attack civilians. They have only been used for legitimate defense.

Is that why these tunnels lead directly to civilians?

Again you're confusing the Jihadi rats' FAILURE to attack civilians from the tunnels,
after being neutralized, with not being used for attempts to fulfill that purpose.

The Palestinians never experience quiet. They suffer occupation 24/7.

Well that's rich...

Since the word 'Palestinians' in itself means 'Occupiers',
that's like fish complaining about water being wet.

Utter junk that the Palestinians are occupiers. You sound like one of those crazy settler types on speed

That's literally the meaning of the 'Palestinians' = 'Occupiers'.

Is there any other meaning?
Feel free to refute that.

Spartacactcus I'm waiting...
But I won't hold my breath.

In the meantime, maybe you can also explain how come those who claim 'Palestine' is theirs,
can't even pronounce the word, let alone know its meaning?

You're waiting for what? For me to agree that the Palestinians are "occupiers "of their own territory ? lol Ain't gonna happen.

I am not trying to avoid you, I am just working my way through Roccos long winded reply from earlier.

Asked for a simple thing -
the proof that 'Palestinian' had any other meaning other than 'Occupier'.

If you can't simply say so,
instead of dancing around show at least some integrity.

Who is occupying, oppressing and cleansing whom? Israel is an apartheid state engaged in ethnic cleansing. A savage rogue authoritarian state.

Let's see, so you couldn't address a simple fact,
and went on to cover that with the usual none sense.

...I'm shocked

Q. Why none of you can refute a single thing I say?

 

[Spartacactcus]

This is because I don't expect to change your mind. As an example, I presented the IHL as to why the Arab Palestinians should be punished (Article 68), yet you still seem to think it is legitimate. Once I present the authoritative citation and you ignore its application, then what more needs to be said? (RHETORICAL)


Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, the IHL references you cited refer to non combatants only. Those that attacked the IDF patrol and captured Shalit were combatants and thus are to be treated as none protected people , soldiers for all intents and purposes and will be covered under the conventions/laws applicable to combatants.

That's why I rejected the application of it to the events surrounding the capture of Shalit and see that as a legitimate attack against occupying forces.

I don't understand why you didn't pick this up and have me down as an unreasonable partisan hack.

When it comes to the treatment of protected persons I gave you a whole raft of Israeli state/IDF violations that you appear not to have responded to.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, Spartacactcus, et al,
(COMMENT)

As I see it, the Arab League Forces from neighboring Arab States entered Article 77 Trust Territory using the excuse that it was necessary to assist the (unarmed) Arab Palestinians from being attacked by Jewish irregular asymmetric forces. The neighboring Arab States, using force, entered the territory to protect the Arab Palestinians. The Arab League Forces claimed that they engaged Jewish terrorist gangs trained in Europe → intending to impose the will of the newly established Israeli Government upon an unwilling Arab Palestinian population. However, a hidden agenda soon appeared when some of the neighboring Arab States took effective control over large areas of the Trust Territory and later either annexed them (as in the West Bank) or placed them under a Military Governorship (as in the Gaza Strip). The outcome looked as if the actual intent of the coordinated attack was to use the chaos of the conflict to seize as much territory as possible (if not all) with the latent operational purpose of extending their sovereign control. In some areas, the Arab League Forces made gains (West Bank and Gaza Strip) while in other areas no significant gains (Lebanese and Syrian border areas).

As might have been expected, the pro-Israel and pro-Arab Palestinians perspectives emerged; each side adopting the stance that you were either for us or against us position. The Arab Palestinians were dominated by the Arab League and had reject overtures to (once again) establish their own Arab State. And consequently, absorb under a foreign Arab rule. By the same token, the Jewish Agency accepted what they could and on 11 May 1949, Israel's efforts under self-determination came to fruition and Israel became a Member of the United Nations.



Most Respectfully,
R

The bottom line is that none of those Arab armies attacked Israel. Glub Pasha called the 1948 war the war that wasn't.

Lebanon had virtually no army. Maybe a few thousand troops. They could barely defend their own border. That was the international border between Lebanon and Palestine. So even if they did cross the border, they crossed into Palestine not Israel.

Syria was a little stronger. They did manage to cross the international border between Syria and Palestine for a brief period then moved back into Syria. Here again, they entered Palestine not Israel.

Jordan was a different case. They believed in the partition plan. The Zionists promised to give Jordan the Arab part of the territory (The West Bank) and $3,000,000 a year for five years if they did not attack Israeli troops. Here again, they entered Palestine not Israel.

Egypt crossed the international border between Egypt and Palestine. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. Here again, they did not enter Israel. They did, however, prevent Israeli forces from Occupying the Gaza Strip.

All this for the UN to divide Palestine into three areas of occupation in 1949 with armistice lines that were specifically not to be political or territorial boundaries.

Nah...
your whole premise is based solely on a false association.
Only problem is, that whole balloon instantly blows up once asked
for any legal definition of Palestine without reference to the Jewish Nation.

P.S.: While were're there, was Palestine ever legally defined with any Arab sovereignty?

And now you start the usual duck dance...

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Spartacactcus, et al,

No, that would be 100% wrong.

Rocco, the IHL references you cited refer to non combatants only.

(COMMENT)

You have to be careful to read the coverage.

◈ Solely intended to harm the Occupying Power,​

◈ Attempt on the life or limb of members of the:​

✦ Occupying Forces​

✦ Occupying administration​

✦ Nor seriously damage the property of the Occupying Forces or Administration or the installations used by them​

The IHL does not distinguish combatant and non-combatant. This distinction is not made in Article 68. I challenge you to read it carefully.

I know that the Arab Palestinians have been telling themselves, for so long, that civil disorder and armed struggle are legal. But that is completely wrong.
• [(1) p.343] See ' Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, ' Vol. II-A, pp. 765-768;

The minor offenses must have been "solely" intended to harm the Occupying Power. The inclusion of the word "solely" excludes acts that harm the Occupying Power indirectly.

Also remember that 90% of the pictures displayed in this thread display NOT Occupying Forces, but Civil Police Authorities.


Most Respectfully,
R