The tremendous power of the social paradigms created by WWII - Part I - The citizen

[abu afak]

You've just proved the entire point of this thread for me.

You believe the children and grandchildren of the european settlers who didn't have any historical right to consider Palestine their homeland, to destroy the ethnic composition of Palestine without the consent of the native population let alone split their homeland, impose a jewish state on them and kept them corraled in ethnic enclaves, you believe they have the right to continue to deny the birthright of the palestinian people to live in 70% of their homeland and murder them if they fight to break free from the enclaves and end their exile.

You DEFINITELY do not perceive the palestinian people as a group of human beings entitled to the same set of rights as Ruby Bridges.

You DEFINITELY assimilated the dehumanising paradigm through which the society you were born into (the United States of the second half of the 20th century) perceive the native people of Palestine.

I rest my case.

Whatever you say Che.
But How about answering my post #24 about the True "paradigm".
You WHIFFED!'

If anything, 'Palestinians' are unique in the post-WWII scene, in being unabsorbed by their surrounding Arab Brothers. Denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs..
But Pampered in getting their own Refugee Agency/UNRWA that has devoured 80% of the World/UN refugee resource due to political (yes, I believe bias as well).
So that now there are 5 Million palestinian 'refugees', up from 700K in 1948.
3rd, 4th Gen and anyone intermarried with non-Palestinians.
Absurd.
While real refugees go hungry, UNRWA runs, summer camps, schools, Free Medical care and prescription drug benefits, etc!

Yes, a unique and Disastrous mistake/"Paradigm" in allowing Palestinians to get their own agency and Encourage/underwrite them to go Unabsorbed, UNLIKE all others post WW!! refugees.

http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/12/...vancing-peace/
Ending UNRWA and Advancing Peace
by Elliott Abrams
December 19, 2011

"Since the end of the Second World War, millions of refugees have left refugee camps, and refugee status, and moved to countries that accepted them–quickly or slowly–as citizens. Post-World War II Europe was an archipelago of displaced persons and refugee camps, housing 850,000 people in 1947–Czechs, Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, Latvians, Greeks, and many more nationalities. By 1952, all but one of the camps had closed. Hundred of thousands of Jewish refugees from Europe went to Israel after 1948, and then hundreds of thousands more arrived from Arab lands when they were forced to flee after 1956 and 1967. The children and grandchildren of these refugees, born after their arrival, were never refugees themselves; they were from birth citizens of the new land, as their parents had become immediately upon their own arrival. In this process many nations and agencies have played wonderful roles, not least the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

The exception to this refugee story is the Palestinians. In most of the Arab lands to which they fled or travelled after 1948 they were often treated badly, and refused citizenship (with Jordan the major exception) or even the right to work legally. And instead of coming under the protection of UNHCR, they had a special agency of their own, UNRWA, the UN Relief and Works Agency. In the decades of its existence, it has not solved or even diminished the Palesinian refugee problem; instead it has presided over a massive increase in its size, for all the descendants of Palestinian refugees are considered to be refugees as well. Once there were 750,000; now there are Five Million people considered by UNRWA to be “Palestinian refugees.”
And UNRWA is now the Largest UN agency, with a staff of 30,000.
UNHCR cares for the rest of the world with about 7,500 personnel.

The Political background to this story is simple: Only in the case of Israel was there a determined Refusal to accept what had happened during and after World War II,"..."
[.......]
Utterly ridiculous.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You keep avoiding giving an actual answer to the question.

it is past tense and it was not illegal

Why did hamas make their civilians targets of urban warfare? Why did hamas engage in attacking Israel or starting a war they could not win? Why did hamas sacrifice their own people by provoking Israel?

The blockade was there first.

A blockade is an act of war.

No the blockade went on in 2007 the attacks on Israel started in August 2005. The same time that Israel gave in to the Palestinian demands that Oslo 2 be implemented so that peace talks could be held. Palestinian he talk with forked tongue and out of backside.
A rocket attack is an act of war, so the blockade was in answer to those many thousands of acts of war.

Not true. Try again.

Blockade of the Gaza Strip - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The blockades of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel from 2007 to present.

Following the takeover, Egypt and Israel largely sealed their border crossings with Gaza, on the grounds that Fatah had fled and was no longer providing security on the Palestinian side.[4]

Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on its cities and to prevent Hamas from obtaining other weapon




So yes it is TRUE and history backs up my post

The Israel−Gaza barrier is a border barrier first constructed by Israel in 1994 between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The barrier was extended in 2005 to cover the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt (the Egypt-Gaza barrier).

For the Palestinians, it is an element of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and an instrument to throttle the movement of Palestinians between West Bank and Gaza.

The barrier was completed in 1996.

Israel Gaza barrier - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

Instead of using a standard screen, Israel has now developed their own for use in gaza urban areas, WP free. Before they used what was in their arsenal. Sound, smoke, smell, what ever Israel uses is being attacked.....while Israel is still being attack with the most common of weapons to foreign imports smuggled to fire into Israel cities.

It is OK for Israel to be attacked but not for it to respond?

I never said it wasn't. That is a strawman.

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel change so they would not have to use a legal and fairly common type of screen. They used what they had, now they make their own. Even now with not WP they are still being condemned for the newer formulas.
Why should Israel not try to defend or protect their soldiers that need to respond against those trying to kill them, against those that attack and try to kill Israeli civilians? Against those to hide behind and kill their own people?

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

 

[Coyote]

I never said it wasn't. That is a strawman.

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel change so they would not have to use a legal and fairly common type of screen. They used what they had, now they make their own. Even now with not WP they are still being condemned for the newer formulas.
Why should Israel not try to defend or protect their soldiers that need to respond against those trying to kill them, against those that attack and try to kill Israeli civilians? Against those to hide behind and kill their own people?

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You keep avoiding giving an actual answer to the question.

it is past tense and it was not illegal

Why did hamas make their civilians targets of urban warfare? Why did hamas engage in attacking Israel or starting a war they could not win? Why did hamas sacrifice their own people by provoking Israel?

All you are doing is dodging the question and then trying to deflect onto other things like Hamas. We talk about past tense ALL THE TIME.

So if something is not technically illegal is ok in your book? Therefore, you are ok with the use of white phosphorous against civilians?

 

[aris2chat]

I never said it wasn't. That is a strawman.

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel change so they would not have to use a legal and fairly common type of screen. They used what they had, now they make their own. Even now with not WP they are still being condemned for the newer formulas.
Why should Israel not try to defend or protect their soldiers that need to respond against those trying to kill them, against those that attack and try to kill Israeli civilians? Against those to hide behind and kill their own people?

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

 

[Coyote]

Israel change so they would not have to use a legal and fairly common type of screen. They used what they had, now they make their own. Even now with not WP they are still being condemned for the newer formulas.
Why should Israel not try to defend or protect their soldiers that need to respond against those trying to kill them, against those that attack and try to kill Israeli civilians? Against those to hide behind and kill their own people?

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

 

[Coyote]

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?

 

[aris2chat]

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?

I understand the use. What I think is not relevant. The facts and the law are. Israel did nothing wrong in the use of the screens. Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP. Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.
Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up. Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.
Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians. They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting. They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP? They have used them for years. Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.

 

[aris2chat]

Is it ok to use WP in densely populated civilian areas when other devices capable of creating smoke with less human damage are available?

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling. It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.

No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.

Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.

(COMMENT)

One key intention of the mandate was to:

• establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
• secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home,
• facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home.

To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning. So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

They all call for THE RESURECTION OF THE JEWISH NATIONAL HOME IN PALESTINE. As in a Jewish Nation as that is the only way to make it safe. The colonisers were the arab muslims who saw the work the Jews put into the land to make it fertile and decided to migrate and steal the land once it was profitable.

 

[Phoenall]

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

W.P has two military uses the first is to create a smokescreen, the second is to illuminate the battlefield at night so that the enemy can be more easily seen.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling. It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.

No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.

Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.

(COMMENT)

One key intention of the mandate was to:

• establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
• secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home,
• facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home.

To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning. So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling. It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.

No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.

Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.

(COMMENT)

One key intention of the mandate was to:

• establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
• secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home,
• facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home.

To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning. So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling. It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.

No matter the intention of the allied powers, the Zionists had colonization in their plan and that is what happened.

Look at the facts on the ground. It is a colonial project.

(COMMENT)

One key intention of the mandate was to:

• establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
• secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home,
• facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home.

To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning. So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

Not true. Try again.

 

[Coyote]

Israel does not use WP any more. Other countries still do, but Israel has created their own screens for use in urban areas.

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

 

[Coyote]

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?

I understand the use. What I think is not relevant. The facts and the law are. Israel did nothing wrong in the use of the screens.

Israel could have used far LESS lethal smoke bombs to create screens.

Yes or no?

Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP. Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.

They could have used far less lethal means to BEGIN WITH. They ALREADY HAD far less lethal formulas.

I AM NOT arguing that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself against Hamas - so stop with that strawman.

Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up. Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.

Calling the damage that WP causes to human flesh something Hamas "gripes about" is truly pathetic. WP is well recognized as a weapon to not use in urban warfare - enought that there are guidelines pertaining to it.

And WP was NOT all they had.

Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians. They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting. They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP? They have used them for years. Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.

And again, you're deflecting. I believe this is what others commonly call "Tu quoque" fallacy: but but what about Hamas?

White phosphorus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Effects on people

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

Injuries from white phosphorus.[91][92]
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[93] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.

Smoke inhalation
Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) has the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m3, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m3.[94]

Oral ingestion
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[95] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[93] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[95] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

Fume inhalation
Long term inhalation of derivative fumes causes a condition called phossy jaw or osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is a painful, debilitating and ultimately lethal condition that afflicted factory workers involved with the manufacture of matches that contained white phosphorus. The mechanism for necrosis is clot formation leading to bone ischaemia or infarction, leading to the putrid rotting of the bone of the lower jaw. For this reason, the Berne Convention (1906) was enacted to forbid the manufacture, sale or purchase of matches containing white phosphorus. This condition may also be caused by high doses of lead, cadmium and bisphosphonate based cancer drugs.​

This isn't asthma caused by smoke inhalation.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, I give you, this argument to a point; your position and explanations are both strong and compelling. It was a colonization project, pursuant to the Mandate and Articles 4 and 6.

(COMMENT)

One key intention of the mandate was to:

• establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,
• secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home,
• facilitate Jewish immigration, for reconstituting their national home.

To accomplish those tasks, you need organization and planning. So, by definition, it is project.

Most Respectfully,
R

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

Not true. Try again.

Whats not true as before 1960 no arab muslims would allow themselves to be called Palestinians, it was an insult. The arab muslims in Palestine called themselves Syrians not Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

You might not like it but at the time the screen was used correctly. Most weapons had not been designed for "urban" warfare. Israel has since designed many of their own out of necessity.

Why were so many civilians outside in the area as the Israeli troops advanced? Since most of the WP was used in the evening, Why were so many civilians out at night in those areas? Most would move away from fighting or stay inside rather become targets.
When rockets were flying in town, I would watch from the balcony. When they were landing around my home, we were down in the basement or we got out of the way before hand to safer area.

At the time it was NOT used correctly. It is clearly contraindicated for use in densly populated areas - that has been made clear over and over and over. You just keep making excuses for it and blaming the victims!

really, now who is lying?

Why did Israel lie about using white phosphorous?

Was this at night?

certainly does not look like high noon

It certainly is NOT night.

You won't condemn it will you? You will excuse it endlessly. Israel fucked up when they used WP in Gaza and you can't bring yourself to condemn it. Israel knew it shouldn't have - they outright lied about it at first, and then they finally fessed up when the evidence was incontrovertable, and eventually changed their policies. But you still defend it. Would you defend it if Hamas used it against Israeli civilians in a dense urban area?

Any comment on the use of W.P by hamas then, or their use of illegal chemical and biological agents in the rockets fired at Israeli children. You cant bring yourself to condemn the acts of cowardice and war crimes committed by the Palestinians daily can you.

 

[Phoenall]

So Aris, are you ok with using White Phosphorous against civilians even though other less toxic materials for smoke screens are available?

I understand the use. What I think is not relevant. The facts and the law are. Israel did nothing wrong in the use of the screens.

Israel could have used far LESS lethal smoke bombs to create screens.

Yes or no?

Since then they have developed their own formula to minimized the supposed burns the gazans claim were a result of the WP. Even smoke can trigger an asthma attack is some people, but Israel has a right to respond to hamas attacks and to prevent the rearming and creation of other bombs to be used against Israel.

They could have used far less lethal means to BEGIN WITH. They ALREADY HAD far less lethal formulas.

I AM NOT arguing that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself against Hamas - so stop with that strawman.

Hamas will always have something to gripe about, or they will make stuff up. Most weapons were no designed for urban warfare, but this is what they had and what they had a right to use.

Calling the damage that WP causes to human flesh something Hamas "gripes about" is truly pathetic. WP is well recognized as a weapon to not use in urban warfare - enought that there are guidelines pertaining to it.

And WP was NOT all they had.

Hamas certainly has no qualms using unconventional weapons or targeting civilians. They don't care about the collateral damage to their own people, except when it can be use to defame Israel is someway.
Most people have the sense to take shelter when there is fighting. They don't send civilians into the streets to become shields.
Why don't you condemn hamas for their use of WP? They have used them for years. Just about every army has some weapons, deterrents or navigation with WP.

And again, you're deflecting. I believe this is what others commonly call "Tu quoque" fallacy: but but what about Hamas?

White phosphorus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Effects on people

White phosphorus can cause injuries and death in three ways: by burning deep into tissue, by being inhaled as a smoke, and by being ingested. Extensive exposure by burning and ingestion is fatal.

Injuries from white phosphorus.[91][92]
Incandescent particles of WP cast off by a WP weapon's initial explosion can produce extensive, deep second and third degree burns. One reason why this occurs is the tendency of the element to stick to the skin. Phosphorus burns carry a greater risk of mortality than other forms of burns due to the absorption of phosphorus into the body through the burned area, resulting in liver, heart and kidney damage, and in some cases multiple organ failure.[93] These weapons are particularly dangerous to exposed people because white phosphorus continues to burn unless deprived of oxygen or until it is completely consumed. In some cases, burns are limited to areas of exposed skin because the smaller WP particles do not burn completely through personal clothing before being consumed.

Smoke inhalation
Burning white phosphorus produces a hot, dense, white smoke consisting mostly of phosphorus pentoxide. Exposure to heavy smoke concentrations of any kind for an extended period (particularly if near the source of emission) has the potential to cause illness or death. White phosphorus smoke irritates the eyes, mucous membranes of the nose, and respiratory tract in moderate concentrations, while higher concentrations can produce severe burns. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has set an acute inhalation Minimum Risk Level (MRL) for white phosphorus smoke of 0.02 mg/m3, the same as fuel-oil fumes. By contrast, the chemical weapon mustard gas is 30 times more potent: 0.0007 mg/m3.[94]

Oral ingestion
The accepted lethal dose when white phosphorus is ingested orally is 1 mg per kg of body weight, although the ingestion of as little as 15 mg has resulted in death.[95] It may also cause liver, heart or kidney damage.[93] There are reports of individuals with a history of oral ingestion who have passed phosphorus-laden stool ("smoking stool syndrome").[95] Its extreme toxicity is due to the generation of free radicals, especially in the liver, where they accumulate and are not easily metabolized.

Fume inhalation
Long term inhalation of derivative fumes causes a condition called phossy jaw or osteonecrosis of the jaw, which is a painful, debilitating and ultimately lethal condition that afflicted factory workers involved with the manufacture of matches that contained white phosphorus. The mechanism for necrosis is clot formation leading to bone ischaemia or infarction, leading to the putrid rotting of the bone of the lower jaw. For this reason, the Berne Convention (1906) was enacted to forbid the manufacture, sale or purchase of matches containing white phosphorus. This condition may also be caused by high doses of lead, cadmium and bisphosphonate based cancer drugs.​

This isn't asthma caused by smoke inhalation.

One point you are constantly refusing to accept and take into consideration is that it is the Palestinians that have elected to fight a war from civilian areas even though nearly half of gaza in unoccupied and open land. The Israeli's used W.P in two roles that were both legal, one as a smoke screen the other to light up the terrorist rocket launchers. If the Palestinian civilians are too stupid to get out of the way, or are forced to act as human shields then any injuries are their own fault.

BUT rather than place the blame were it belongs you constantly blame the Jews for the actions of the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure I agree.

When you look at San Remo, the Balfour declaration, the LoN, and the mandate, none of them called for a Jewish state. They all called for a safe place in Palestine for the Jews with the Palestinians while (more or less) respecting the rights of the native population. Britain specifically stated that there would not be a Jewish state against the will of the people and even refused to implement the failed resolution 181 because it was not accepted by both sides.

(COMMENT)

This is a bit disingenuous. The UK participation was conditional. The UK said that it couldn't do it by themselves ("could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides)." It was not a refusal - merely an intention not to participate. It was recognition that there would be an outbreak of hostilities as the Partition Plan was implemented:

"(iv) the United Kingdom Government “will endeavour to give the Commission the benefit of their experience and knowledge of the situation in Palestine, subject always to their decision that they are unable to take part in the implementation of the United Nations plan. That is, of course, in accordance with the statement made originally to the General Assembly by the Colonial Secretary to the effect that we could not alone implement any plan not accepted by both sides; and that as regards joining in any implementation, that would depend on two conditions. The Commission will remember that one was the inherent justice of the plan, an the other was the degree of force requisite for its implementation.” SOURCE: Paragraph 8 --- FIRST MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL​

3. At the twenty-fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, the United Kingdom Representative, in making clear the extent to which the role assigned to his Government by the Report of Sub-Committee 1 was compatible with the declared intention of his Government not to participate in the implementation of a plan of partition, stated: “If a scheme of partition were approved and a United Nations Commission set up, the Palestine Government would, when the time came, hand over its authority to that Commission”. SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION Note for Sir Alexander Cadogan​

The creation of Israel was a strictly unilateral move by the foreign Zionists with no legitimacy from any of the previous actions.

(COMMENT)

This is debatable. Yes, in the sense of exercising the Right of Self-Determination, Israel did declare independence; as a people emerging into sovereign statehood and independence. But in doing so, the Jewish People took action in total coordination with the UN Palestine Commission (the successor Government) and pursuant to Part I --- Section B (Steps Preparatory to Independence), Paragraph 4 --- UN Resolution 181(II), wherein:

4. The Commission, after consultation with the democratic parties and other public organizations of The Arab and Jewish States, shall select and establish in each State as rapidly as possible a Provisional Council of Government. The activities of both the Arab and Jewish Provisional Councils of Government shall be carried out under the general direction of the Commission.

If by 1 April 1948 a Provisional Council of Government cannot be selected for either of the States, or, if selected, cannot carry out its functions, the Commission shall communicate that fact to the Security Council for such action with respect to that State as the Security Council may deem proper, and to the Secretary-General for communication to the Members of the United Nations.​

AND by following the instruction as prescribed in Part I --- Sections C and D - as an integral part of the process. As noted in GA Resolution A/RES/273 (III) Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (11 May 1949): "Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions," the process was completed by the people of Israel.

The concept of popular sovereignty is that the legitimacy of a government is derived from the will of the people. Israel was created with the virtually unanimous opposition of the native population including the native Jews. The Israeli government, over 65 years later, is still rejected by the vast majority of Palestine's native people.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

Israel emerged after a War of Independence; after successfully defending its declaration and right to self-determination from external and offensive interference from Arab Aggression by multiple members of the Arab League.

Israel continues to colonize Palestine as we speak.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that "colonize" is the right word. Is it exercising its right under the terms of the Oslo Accords; as agreed to by the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People?

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, one issue that you continuously duck is the fact that the Palestinians have the inalienable right to territorial integrity.

When did that become international law then, And remember until 1960 the only Palestinians were the Jews, the arab muslims were Syrians

Not true. Try again.

Whats not true as before 1960 no arab muslims would allow themselves to be called Palestinians, it was an insult. The arab muslims in Palestine called themselves Syrians not Palestinians.

Some did but it doesn't matter. The 1925 citizenship order said they were Palestinian. That was their legal status.