Terrorist ???

[toastman]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

Oh, shutup with your drivel Beezle. Stop acting as if you know what you're talking about.
Stood up for their rights my ass! Palestinians have been using many different methods, since even before 1948, to kill Jews and Israelis. What about Israel's rights? You and the other pro Palis love to paint this picture that Palestinians are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong.
They have done plenty wrong, and that is why they are in the situation they are today.

 

[Beelzebub]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

 

[Crystalclear]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

The Jewish people had the right to set up their state in the mandate Palestine recognized by the LoN, so shut up about the invading part. The Arabs have tried to kill Jews ever since, backed by the Palestinians. The Arabs did not succeed and lost. That's why the Palestinians are in their current situation without a Palestinian state. It's completely their own fault and they still haven't learned from their mistakes, because they still elect a terrorist organisation that keeps fighting Israel.

 

[toastman]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

Funny that even after your 'invading' lie has been dismantled so many times, you still use it.
All you have is lies and propaganda Beezle (like most deluded pro Palestinians here)
BTW, need I remind you that the Palestinians and their terrorist scum neighbours failed miserably at getting rid of the Jews ? Several times actually.
It must suck to be on the Palestinian side, what with all the losing

 

[toastman]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

The Jewish people had the right to set up their state in the mandate Palestine recognized by the LoN, so shut up about the invading part. The Arabs have tried to kill Jews ever since, backed by the Palestinians. The Arabs did not succeed and lost. That's why the Palestinians are in their current situation without a Palestinian state. It's completely their own fault and they still haven't learned from their mistakes, because they still elect a terrorist organisation that keeps fighting Israel.

"The Arabs succeeded and lost. That's why the Palestinians are in their current situation without a Palestinian state."

Crystal, you bring up a very important point that is often ignored and seldom brought up.
The MAIN reason as to why the Palestinians are in this mess is because of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in which the Palestinian Arabs joined 5 Arab states to try and destroy Israel and "push the Jews into the sea".
Not only did it result in many Palestinian refugees, but the Palestinians lost 50% of the land allotted to them in the partition plan. The 6 day war and Yom Kippur war was just salt on the wounds for them.
But since they lost, they try to play the 'Israel was the aggressor' and 'we are eternal victim' card.

 

[Crystalclear]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

The Jewish people had the right to set up their state in the mandate Palestine recognized by the LoN, so shut up about the invading part. The Arabs have tried to kill Jews ever since, backed by the Palestinians. The Arabs did not succeed and lost. That's why the Palestinians are in their current situation without a Palestinian state. It's completely their own fault and they still haven't learned from their mistakes, because they still elect a terrorist organisation that keeps fighting Israel.

"The Arabs succeeded and lost. That's why the Palestinians are in their current situation without a Palestinian state."

Crystal, you bring up a very important point that is often ignored and seldom brought up.
The MAIN reason as to why the Palestinians are in this mess is because of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war in which the Palestinian Arabs joined 5 Arab states to try and destroy Israel and "push the Jews into the sea".
Not only did it result in many Palestinian refugees, but the Palestinians lost 50% of the land allotted to them in the partition plan. The 6 day war and Yom Kippur war was just salt on the wounds for them.
But since they lost, they try to play the 'Israel was the aggressor' and 'we are eternal victim' card.

Completely agree, the Arabs started the agression, backed by the Palestinians. Now they should deal with the consequences of their stupid actions and not play the victim.

 

[member]

​

"I don't think.............Do you have something to prove your assertion?"

"At the conclusion of the various Armistice Agreements……."​

 

[Daniyel]

Again, having a "right" and actually using the "right" are two different things. There is actually such a condition of --- "doing too little --- too late."

Most Respectfully,
R

No there isn't.
You just made that up.

You are lying.

Apart from arguing that Palestinians stood up for their rights from the start, but were murdered each time by the very-effective-at-killing invading Europeans.

No, Palestinians always supported Arab governments and terrorist groups that wanted to destroy Israel, even when there still was a Palestinian state. Because of their agression towards Israel, the Palestinians were murdered.

Israel was an invader state set up by invaders.

They have every right to try to expel the savage Europeans who came to take their lands by force.

Every right!

Wrong, and wrong, and wrong.
The Palestinians - or Philistines[As you like to call them] are not the natives [Majority] and they made their way from Egypt/Jordan, Jews are the original residents of Israel, and 'Palestine' is a false name, it is only a matter of time until they'll finally realize they don't belong here, after they'll start getting some real education instead of:

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not a good explanation of "terrorism." HAMAS is self defining in it the Covenant (1988) and in its published Political Position (2013).

A good explanation of terrorism.

(COMMENT)

Sean Hannity is not a journalist by any way - shape - of form. He is a rabble rouser using current political strife as a means of "infotainment." This was not a serious discussion by either TYT Critics or Hannity.

The Palestinians and CAIR (Council on American–Islamic Relations is a Muslim) are trying to justify Jihadist Action and Armed Insurgency as a legitimate means to address Palestinian grievances; as opposed to peaceful negotiations.

War is not about the statistical analysis of casualty rates; or contentious discourse over the practical use of force against a hostile neighbor. War has many characteristics to it. One of those characteristic is death and destruction. By nature, war has to be ugly and diabolical --- otherwise there would be no reason to oppose war. If war was absent all the ugliness that it embodies, it would be the answer to ever dispute.

HAMAS is a terrorist organization. It has outgrowing connections to other terrorist organizations. The people of GAZA openly serve in and give material support to terrorism. HAMAS itself describes itself as using Jihadism as a means to an end; and criticizes attempts at non-combative negotiations.

It is what it is. But using the critique of the Hannity entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with pro-HAMAS audiences and pro-terrorist consumers is simply grasping at straws. Even I don't like Hannity. But there are many people that appreciate his basic perspective. Why? Because he makes it simple: HAMAS justifies its action as Jihadist response to "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." According to HAMAS, "there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

5. Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]; with the need to mobilize all the energies of the nation in the battle. ---- ≈ ---- Khaled Meshal, HAMAS Political Leader (March 2013)​

If you are going to start a rational discussion on terrorism, let's start here.

Most Respectfully,
R

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Are you sure about that tinny when they themselves admit to targeting civilians as shown here

Gaza Palestinian Rockets Unlawfully Targeted Israeli Civilians Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch said.

“Palestinian armed groups made clear in their statements that harming civilians was their aim,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “There is simply no legal justification for launching rockets at populated areas.”



So you seem to be lacking in any form of intelligence

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.


(COMMENT)

First, HAMAS has fired into Israel. That is outside of Gaza. We can argue about the fact that the Hostile Arab Palestinians claim ALL the territory of that was formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. But the claim is not reality.

You have never refuted that claim. Every time I have asked you to document Israel's legal acquisition of the land it sits on you duck the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

And you get told every time that the lands legal owners under customary international law gave the land to the Jews. So there you have it the LEGAL ACQUISITION of the land under customary international law finalised on May 15 1948 by the declaration of independence. Ratified by the UN who accepted the Israel declaration and granted them legal recognition of ownership of the land.

SO STICK THAT IN YOUR PIPE TINNY

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

What? You're making stuff up and asking the wrong questions too.
Again, acquiring land had nothing to do with anything. That's a real estate issue.
And the armistice agreements are not even in effect any more.
1979 was the Egypt-Israel treaty and 1994 was the Jordan-Israel treaty that gave Israel permanent internationally recognized borders.
These are facts that you simply cannot change or refute.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

What? You're making stuff up and asking the wrong questions too.
Again, acquiring land had nothing to do with anything. That's a real estate issue.
And the armistice agreements are not even in effect any more.
1979 was the Egypt-Israel treaty and 1994 was the Jordan-Israel treaty that gave Israel permanent internationally recognized borders.
These are facts that you simply cannot change or refute.

So Israel claims borders on land that Israel agreed is Palestine?

Interesting.

Even the UN has disclaimers on the validity of those borders.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

Are you sure of that tinny when this is the reality

1949 Armistice Agreements - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On 24 February the Israel–Egypt Armistice Agreement was signed in Rhodes

Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, 3 April 1949

The same are present for Syria and Lebanon so Israel is mentioned while Palestine has no such agreement


The UN accepted Israel's declaration of independence which was all that was needed under the mandate terms for Israel to acquire the land legally.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

What? You're making stuff up and asking the wrong questions too.
Again, acquiring land had nothing to do with anything. That's a real estate issue.
And the armistice agreements are not even in effect any more.
1979 was the Egypt-Israel treaty and 1994 was the Jordan-Israel treaty that gave Israel permanent internationally recognized borders.
These are facts that you simply cannot change or refute.

So Israel claims borders on land that Israel agreed is Palestine?

Interesting.

Even the UN has disclaimers on the validity of those borders.

Wrong again tinny the borders were agreed under the terms of UN 242 and as Palestine did not exist as a nation, and still doesn't according to the UN, they had no say in the matter. You may as well say that Egypt and Jordan claims borders on land they have agreed is Palestine. Note the terminology from your source it say Palestine and not Palestinian, which means your source is telling you the land is still Palestine as the Negev is still the Negev or the Sinai is still the Sinai.

 

[member]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

What? You're making stuff up and asking the wrong questions too.
Again, acquiring land had nothing to do with anything. That's a real estate issue.
And the armistice agreements are not even in effect any more.
1979 was the Egypt-Israel treaty and 1994 was the Jordan-Israel treaty that gave Israel permanent internationally recognized borders.
These are facts that you simply cannot change or refute.

This is a man who defends "Hamass." A hardcore terrorist organization who's existence (along with the civilian poopulation) revolves around violence.


The Gaza Strip is your typical terrorist haven (on the beach) - like another wasted space.....
The Horn of Africa. You'll always have to monitor them. Maybe one day they'll get sick of wearing ski masks and playing with Rockets and take in a movie instead.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your attempting to twist the words of the Agreement.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

(COMMENT)

All the Armistice Agreements were basically constructed the same. If you look, for instance, at the Armistice Agreement with Egypt (24 FEB 49) you will find that:

• That it is titled "EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI GENERAL ARMISTICE AGREEMENT" and not the Egyptian-Palestine Agreement.
• The two parties to the Agreement were Egypt and Israel; no participation of any Arab Palestinians.
• The Agreement was signed by representatives of Egypt and Israel; with no countersign by Arab Palestinians.

You will also note the key passage in Article IV(3) of the Agreement:

Article IV

With specific reference to the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council of 4 and 16 November 1948, the following principles and purposes are affirmed:
... ... ...
3. It is further recognized that rights, claims or interests of a non-military character in the area of Palestine covered by this Agreement may be asserted by either Party, and that these, by mutual agreement being excluded from the Armistice negotiations, shall be, at the discretion of the Parties, the subject of later settlement. It is emphasized that it is not the purpose of this Agreement to establish, to recognize, to strengthen, or to weaken or nullify, in any way, any territorial, custodial or other rights, claims or interests which may be asserted by either Party in the area of Palestine or any part or locality thereof covered by this Agreement, whether such asserted rights, claims or interests derive from Security Council resolutions, including the resolution of 4 November 1948 and the Memorandum of 13 November 1948 for its implementation, or from any other source. The provisions of this Agreement are dictated exclusively by military considerations and are valid only for the period of the Armistice. [S/1264/Corr.1 23 February 1949]​

You have a tendency to misrepresent the term "Palestine" as used in 1949. The term "Palestine" was still defined by the Palestine Order in Council (1922), meaning: "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine" --- as further amended by the two key points in the UN Announcement of 27 February 1948:

• "After the 15th May, 1948, Palestine will continue to be a legal entity but it will still not be a sovereign state because it will not be immediately self-governing.
• "After the 15th May, 1948, the United Nations Commission will be the Government of Palestine.

It is also important to notice that the Armistice (Egyptian-Israeli) is concluded on 4 FEB 49, and that the UN Security Council recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations on 4 MAR 1949 [S/RES/69 (1949) S/1277] - which is subsequently approved on the following May [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949].

Israel did not "acquire" land, but instead, followed the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" as outlined in General Assembly Resolution 181(II), and recalled in Resolution 273 (III): Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations. Israel exercised its "right to self-determination." This was a vastly different approach than tat take by the Arab-Palestinian, leading to the Invasion by Arab League and a Civil War between the Jewish community and the Arab.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You get partial credit.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are confusing your terminology.

Cool, let's start with some facts.

Hamas does not operate outside its own borders.

Hamas does not attack "civilians" as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

(COMMENT)

Secondly --- you are mistaken; under the GCIV, the term "civilian" is not the same as a "protected person."

That is correct. GCIV uses the term protected persons because not all civilians are protected persons. Civilian is not the definitive term.

The most relevant example is that the nationals of an occupying power are exempt from the protected persons category.

(COMMENT)

OK, one more time! The "nationals of an occupying power" are covered under Article 68, as explained in Post #10 ... Remembering of course that under the Rules of War - Customary IHL, "civilian" is defined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument

Why would they specify that exclution?

Read it again and you will see that it means nationals of the occupying power in the occupied lands, not in their own nation. So hamas is firing on civilians and protected persons contrary to the Geneva conventions and IHL.

OK, but the 1949 UN armistice agreements called all of Palestine Palestine. There was no mention of a place called Israel. Israel signed those agreements.

What has transpired since 1949 that allowed Israel to acquire that land?

What? You're making stuff up and asking the wrong questions too.
Again, acquiring land had nothing to do with anything. That's a real estate issue.
And the armistice agreements are not even in effect any more.
1979 was the Egypt-Israel treaty and 1994 was the Jordan-Israel treaty that gave Israel permanent internationally recognized borders.
These are facts that you simply cannot change or refute.

So Israel claims borders on land that Israel agreed is Palestine?

Interesting.

Even the UN has disclaimers on the validity of those borders.

Again, no it's not just Israel. I've shown you the treaties from the UN that CLEARLY SPECIFY the permanent borders between Israel and Egypt & Israel and Jordan as well as maps from credible sources that clearly specify these permanent borders.
Israel never called the land Palestine. That's another one of your lies.
You are once again debating issues that are not up for debate.

 

[teddyearp]

Load of crap, Rocco.

Show me when the Palestinians lost a war with Israel.

Show me when they won.