What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy

[Boston1]

LOL OK lets all do a little reading.

Quote

After the 1920 Arab riots and 1921 Jaffa riots, the Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British, to whom the League of Nations had given a mandate over Palestine in 1920, had no desire to confront local Arab gangs that frequently attacked Palestinian Jews.[3][4] Believing that they could not rely on the British administration for protection from these gangs, the Jewish leadership created the Haganah to protect Jewish farms and kibbutzim. In addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs. In the period between 1920–1929, the Haganah lacked a strong central authority or coordination. Haganah "units" were very localized and poorly armed: they consisted mainly of Jewish farmers who took turns guarding their farms or their kibbutzim.

Following the 1929 Palestine riots, the Haganah's role changed dramatically. It became a much larger organization encompassing nearly all the youth and adults in the Jewish settlements, as well as thousands of members from the cities. It also acquired foreign arms and began to develop workshops to create hand grenades and simple military equipment, transforming from an untrained militia to a capable underground army.

End Quote

Case closed

So what would happen if Israel decided to stop playing the nice guy ? I can picture the UNWRA leaving pretty quick and a slightly more equitable distribution of aid through other sources.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View

Support for Israel remains at all time highs. Deal with it , or not, who cares. Nothing's changing! America the land of the free:

[URL='http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-favorably.aspx?g_source=Support%20for%20Israel&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles']Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

Israel Favorably[/URL]

Seven in 10 Americans Continue to View Israel Favorably

FEBRUARY 23, 2015


PRINCETON, N.J. -- Even as relations between the leaders of Israel and the United States reportedly deteriorate over disagreement about how to handle Iran's nuclear program, Israel has retained its broadly favorable image in the U.S. over the past year. Seventy percent of Americans now view that country favorably, and 62% say they sympathize more with the Israelis than the Palestinians in the Mideast conflict. By contrast, 17% currently view the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 16% sympathize more with the Palestinians.

......

In fact, Israel's public image in the U.S. has been fairly strong since 2005, with an average 68% of Americans viewing it favorably. But from 2000 to 2004, when hostilities between Israel and the Palestinians were running high, its favorable score averaged 60%. Prior to that, Israel's favorable rating was even more volatile, reflecting other Mideast events, including the 1991 Gulf War, when positive views of Israel soared after that country suffered Iraqi rocket attacks.

.....

Republicans Nearly Unanimous in Support of Israel

A key reason Americans' sympathy for Israel has solidified at a sizable majority level is that Republicans' support for the Jewish state has increased considerably, rising from 53% in 2000 to more than 80% since 2014 -- with just 7% choosing the Palestinian Authority. A particularly large jump in GOP sympathy for Israel occurred in the first few years after 9/11 and at the start of the 2003 Iraq War.

Democrats' support for Israel has also risen since 2000, but not quite as sharply as Republicans'.

I don't understand why you post links that prove my point. Are you a masochist? From your link:

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the big Zionist lie that denies that Zionists from another place ( often another continent) went to Palestine attacked the native population, evicted a large portion and transferred a foreign population on the land that the natives were evicted from.

 

[Boston1]

You seem to have real trouble sticking to the subject.

Lets review what we are supposed to be discussing

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

But what if the Israeli's accepted the war for what it is, acted within the Geneva Conventions and completed the war process. The most humane solution is to end the conflict ASAP, Clearly negotiating with the terrorist isn't working so obviously the fastest way to peace is to finish the war.

Anyone who is in any way familiar with the Geneva conventions and the UN charter would realize that Israel is well within its rights to defend itself. Since the Arab League declared war in 1948 a condition of war has existed. So why not follow it to its natural conclusion. Victory.

Why not take the pali terrorist enclaves one at a time and utterly defeat them. Start small, one of the smaller enclaves where terrorist activity exists. The security walls are perfect for isolating each enclave and from there all aid distribution in terms of food and medicine should be distributed just outside the security area in determination centers where combatants, those who assist combatants and those suspected of being or aiding combatants can be detained as POWs. The rest can be remanded to detention centers not unlike the centers the US set up for the Japanese in WW2. Any of them that refuse to come out to receive their aid can rot. Embargo all entry into the given area, no goods of any kind. Lay siege to enclaves one at a time until complete capitulation is achieved.

Anyone designated a POW according to the Geneva conventions should be repatriated to a neutral third country exactly as specified within the conventions.

Anyone designated a civilian or a refugee can be legally removed from the war zones until such time as its safe to return them.

Rinse and repeat

Once all pali enclaves have been swept for persons having forfeited their protected status, then the rest should be offered the opportunity for unconditional surrender. Should they refuse I'm pretty sure they can be held under military law by the controlling military power or repatriated to a neutral third country.

Regardless its time for the Israeli's to stop ***** footing around and end the war.

A negotiated solution has clearly failed. Which leaves us continuing the war to its logical conclusion. Unconditional surrender

 

[montelatici]

Invading a territory, evicting the native population and then transferring your population to the territory the native people were evicted is "nice"? LOL

You are so childish, your little wet dream of genocide, surrender, starvation is so silly. Grow up.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting...and food for thought. Basheer Assad is certainly not concerned about HR and IHL. Yet, the US/allied attacks against ISIS are very careful to avoid civilian casualties to the point where the conflict is now entering it's 6th year. It certainly makes for horrific choices - for example, the choice that was made of using the atomic bomb on Japan and it's horrific aftermath alongside a quicker and decisive end to the conflict. There is no "good" choice. Yet Asymetric Activity has always been a part of warfare hasn't it? And it's the only way non-state actors (for example seperatists or "freedom fighters") can wage conflict against a state - it's the tactic used by the Jewish guerrellas in the founding of Israel and it was successful. It seems somehow hypocritical to condemn the Palestinians for doing to the Israeli's what the Israeli's did to the British for much the same reason - a desire for a state.

 

[Penelope]

Coyote, Boston1, et al

There is no such thing as a "legitimate fighters against the occupation." This is a much more complicated of an issue than one first thinks.

Its been what ? 65 years or so Coyote ? The pali's continue to occupy Israeli territory. They continue one terrorist act after another. They refuse to negotiate a peace deal and they at every turn spout off about how they are going to wipe out the Israeli's.

Oh and I forgot their declaration of war against the Israelis and two other major assaults against Israel by multiple Arab countries and a constant barrage of rockets and child suicide combatants.

No Coyote, negotiations have failed. That much is certain.

The next logical step then it so finish the war. Win and be done with it. If for no other reason do it for the children on both sides so they might lead normal lives.

I'd suggest the most peaceful means possible and suggest throwing the UNWRA ( who's fomented most of this problem ) out of the country and completely overhauling the aid system. Starting with segregating combatants from protected persons exactly as specified in the Geneva Conventions.

Enough is enough

Finish the war,

Win it and move on.

Combatants that hit military targets are legitimate fighters against the occupation. Regardless of what you (or Israeli politicians) calls it - the rest of the world recognizes it as an occupation...no different than when the Brits held it.

(COMMENT)

There is no special category for a "freedom fighter" (FF) in international law. The FFs are associated with resistance movements, insurgencies, and general asymmetric. In that regard and context Article 22 Fourth Geneva Convention, wherein: "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited." While many pro-Palestinians have argued that "any means necessary" applies, it actually does not.

In connection to an "occupation," the key is Article 68, wherein: "Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power,"... "may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons" ...

The term "combatant" is kind of tricky.

2. Who is a combatant? (ICRC: The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism)

International humanitarian law permits members of the armed forces of a State party to an international armed conflict and associated militias who fulfil the requisite criteria to directly engage in hostilities. They are generally considered lawful, or privileged, combatants who may not be prosecuted for the taking part in hostilities as long as they respect international humanitarian law. Upon capture they are entitled to prisoner of war status.

If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered " unlawful " or " unprivileged " combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.

Both lawful and unlawful combatants may be interned in wartime, may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes. Both are entitled to humane treatment in the hands of the enemy.
​

It really does not matter which category you place the Hostile Arab Palestinians in; Protected Persons, Lawful Combatants, or Unprivileged Combatants... may be interrogated and may be prosecuted for war crimes.

I hope this helps the understanding.

Most Respectfully,
R

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets

Not at all.

The Irgun made every attempt to legitimize itself by following a code of conduct synonymous with the Geneva conventions.

For instance they wore uniforms.

However, we're only talking about a few scattered incidents over a two year or so period.

The fact remains that the Arabs are the illegal aggressive belligerent in this, which places them under a very different microscope than the defending party.

Go listen to the video Monte put up, and learn all about the Zionist savages, just go to min. 42, if your hard up for time. The Palestinians have more right to the land than any fake jew.

 

[Indeependent]

Yes, they are very misinformed and have been brainwashed. But young Americans are now able to do their own research with the internet and are supporting the Palestinians. Things are turning around for the better. In ten years most Americans will blame Israel, as it should be.

"Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

Among 18 to 29-year olds, 29 percent blame Israel more for the current wave of violence, while 21 percent blame Hamas."

Young Americans take a dim view of Israel’s actions

71% don't blame Israel...sucks for the Jordanians.

 

[montelatici]

The Jordanians aren't involved.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means.​

Such as?

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting...and food for thought. Basheer Assad is certainly not concerned about HR and IHL. Yet, the US/allied attacks against ISIS are very careful to avoid civilian casualties to the point where the conflict is now entering it's 6th year. It certainly makes for horrific choices - for example, the choice that was made of using the atomic bomb on Japan and it's horrific aftermath alongside a quicker and decisive end to the conflict. There is no "good" choice. Yet Asymetric Activity has always been a part of warfare hasn't it? And it's the only way non-state actors (for example seperatists or "freedom fighters") can wage conflict against a state - it's the tactic used by the Jewish guerrellas in the founding of Israel and it was successful. It seems somehow hypocritical to condemn the Palestinians for doing to the Israeli's what the Israeli's did to the British for much the same reason - a desire for a state.

I think your final few premisses are incorrect. I can't see any evidence that the pali's actually want a state, they seem much much more interested in the destruction of Israel.

Also the difference is that the Irgun wasn't strapping bombs onto 14 year olds and sending them on over.

Its that whole false equivalency thing again

But I do agree there are some serious issues to be considered for finalizing the war asap. Thats why I suggested the Israeli's use aid as a carrot to bring as many innocents out of the terrorist enclaves as possible as fast as possible and get them to safety. Israel needs to continue winning the PR war.

 

[Boston1]

The Jordanians aren't involved.

Of course they are. Most of the so called refugees are, or are descendants of the defeated Jordanian army which attacked Israel in 48, 67 and 73 and not actually legitimate refugees. They are combatants who should be repatriated to Jordan.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution.​

Settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. Without them the occupation could not exist.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.​

​

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​

 

[Boston1]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution.​

Settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of the occupation. Without them the occupation could not exist.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org​

There is no occupation. Which is another reason Israel should give up playing with these clowns and finish the war. The constant lies being forwarded by the pali pr machine.

Quote

In the first petitions challenging acts of the military authorities in the OT, the petitioners based their arguments on the norms of belligerent occupation, as expressed in the Hague Regulations and the Fourth GenevaConvention.12 When the Court required them to reply to these petitions, the authorities were forced to take a position on whether these norms were indeed applicable. They initially attempted to hedge their bets by arguing that, even though it was not clear whether the territories were indeed occupied, in practice the military authorities complied with the norms of belligerent occupation and were therefore prepared for their actions to be assessed under these norms.13After a short time this caveat fell away and, alongside the rules of administrative law that apply to actions of all branches of the Israeli executive, the framework of belligerent occupation became the standard legal regime for assessing actions of the authorities in the OT.14

The de facto acceptance by the authorities that the applicable law in the OT was the law of belligerent occupation freed the Court from having to decide what the constituent elements of occupation are.

End Quote

So while the Israeli courts have actually never ruled on IF its an occupation. They do use the term.

But the interesting thing in the law is that an occupation can only occur when one nations occupies anothers sovereign territory. The disputed territories weren't sovereign territory at the time Jordan staged their attack in 67.

 

[montelatici]

Coyote, et al,

Propaganda and the dissemination of misinformation has become a "art form."

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda​

If you have been told over and over again that you have the right to attack unarmed men, women, and children, because they occupied "your" land, then --- pretty soon --- you begin to believe it.

But if you really look and search, what you were told were laws, were not (for instance A/RES/37/43 used by P F Tinmore below, is not law; it has no authority at all. It says it reaffirms something, but you cannot tell what. It was a 1982 Resolution written when the West Bank was Sovereign Jordanian Territory; written 15 years after the Six Day War, and, 6 years before the PLO declared independence). And what the Law says, is quite different. There is absolutely NO LAW that says the Hostile Arab Palestinians have the right to kill indiscriminately, by any and all means; without repercussions and prosecution. Certainly, the Jordanians would not have stood for it during their control of the West Bank, and Israel will not now.
​

Our friend in Post #97 took issue with the word "Hostile." This is one of those cases where, if you hear it articulated that using the adjective "Hostile" to describe a segment of the Arab Palestinians is inaccurate, childish or otherwise incorrect, you begin to believe it:

It's confusing. It looks to me like Israel got away with labeling it's unlawful combants (or Hostile Jews) as heros for their freedom fighting activities...but the Palestinians are held to the flame for the same thing when attacking military targets.

(COMMENT)

Well, that remains to be seen. In the end, how the various parties, directly in conflict, will be judged and adjudicated by the ancillary parties of influence to the conflict will be the determining factor. And that will be pretty hard to forecast.

Nearly all International Human Rights Laws (HR) and Humanitarian Laws (IHL) is more are diametrically opposed to trial by combat (dispute resolution by force of arms). The Customary and Laws of Armed Conflict (War) are matters of applied chivalry to the battlefield and it consequences. At some point, when the Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws begin to induce more harm that good, the tide will roll backwards eliminating the scope and nature of such laws as related to dispute resolution. Already, we have seen that the application of Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws have prevented a decisive combat victory such that there has been and period of near continuous hostility [Low Intensity Conflict (LIC)] for more than seven decades. This LIC has allowed the number of casualties to exceed the probably casualties had the proponents of HR and IHL been silent and on the matter; allowing for a swift conclusion by at least 1967.

One of the very key factors that both HR and IHL Proponents have prevented from occurring, is the infliction of such casualties and damages on one side (or the other) such that their spirit and will to pursue further conflict is broken. Had this happened, in 1967 or 1968, there would have probably been that would have allowed for the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian to nearly match that of Israel. However, every HR and IHL activity have actively worked against the decisive victory and allowed the Arab Palestinian to near total developmental failure. The HR and IHL have set the condition for the lack of human development and the growth of generational Jihadist, Insurgent, Terrorist and Asymmetric Activity.

Now the pro-Palestinian will advocate for further conflict and hostile activity, with the insistence of its necessity to aggravate the Arab Palestinian to pursue non-peaceful means and to promoted the further use of force, insisting that the Arab Palestinian has the right to kill in the name of their rights, which they abuse on a progressive basis. NOT Remembering that the objective is to achieve a solution through peaceful means. The HR and IHL will then further interfere with a decisive victory (by one side or the other) and establish a foundation for the development of the people and the peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Interesting...and food for thought. Basheer Assad is certainly not concerned about HR and IHL. Yet, the US/allied attacks against ISIS are very careful to avoid civilian casualties to the point where the conflict is now entering it's 6th year. It certainly makes for horrific choices - for example, the choice that was made of using the atomic bomb on Japan and it's horrific aftermath alongside a quicker and decisive end to the conflict. There is no "good" choice. Yet Asymetric Activity has always been a part of warfare hasn't it? And it's the only way non-state actors (for example seperatists or "freedom fighters") can wage conflict against a state - it's the tactic used by the Jewish guerrellas in the founding of Israel and it was successful. It seems somehow hypocritical to condemn the Palestinians for doing to the Israeli's what the Israeli's did to the British for much the same reason - a desire for a state.

I think your final few premisses are incorrect. I can't see any evidence that the pali's actually want a state, they seem much much more interested in the destruction of Israel.

Also the difference is that the Irgun wasn't strapping bombs onto 14 year olds and sending them on over.

Its that whole false equivalency thing again

But I do agree there are some serious issues to be considered for finalizing the war asap. Thats why I suggested the Israeli's use aid as a carrot to bring as many innocents out of the terrorist enclaves as possible as fast as possible and get them to safety. Israel needs to continue winning the PR war.

The usual propaganda by Boston:

1. Palestinians don't want a state.

The Palestinians started demanding an independent state as articulated in the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22 since 1922.

"PALESTINE.
​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.
Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:
​

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.

If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
  

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all.

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

2. As far as teenage resistance fighters:

"During World War II, approximately 30,000 Jews fought back as partisans, armed resistance fighters. Many partisans were teens and they significantly impeded the German war efforts and saved thousands of lives."

http://www.nj.gov/education/holocaust/resources/partisans.pdf

 

[Phoenall]

Not possible, Israel would first have had to have tried to play the nice guy, rather than stealing land and imposing military rule and apartheid regimes.

So what land has Israel tried to steal then, remembering that the land is in actuality Jewish to begin with. Or will you join the other rabid Nazi scum in denying that Israel has recourse to International law ?

 

[montelatici]

The Jordanians aren't involved.

Of course they are. Most of the so called refugees are, or are descendants of the defeated Jordanian army which attacked Israel in 48, 67 and 73 and not actually legitimate refugees. They are combatants who should be repatriated to Jordan.

Do you really believe making fantastic statements with no basis in fact convinces anyone? Grow up.

 

[Phoenall]

Wrong

I'm exactly on target.

The Israeli's have a right to defend themselves

See
United Nations Charter
article 51

There is a condition of war as declared by the Arab League

see
Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948

Also see
Article 2 III Geneva Convention

The Israeli's have the right to detain prisoners of war

See
III Geneva Convention articles 3,4,5,6,10,23,28,33,60,65,66,67,72,73,75,109,110,118,119,122,132

Israeli has an obligation to segregate POWs from civilians and refugees.

See
Common article 3 of the geneva Conventions
Article 75 first protocol of the Geneva Conventions

Israel may repatriate POWs to neutral third parties.

See
Article 12 III Geneva Convention

Sorry but If you have any specific complaints about any of my suggestions that can be seen within the provisions on the conduct of war feel free. But so far you've offered not a shred of supporting arguments within law.

There is a condition of war as declared by the Arab League

see
Arab League declaration on the invasion of Palestine- 15 May 1948​

Was Palestine a member of the Arab League?

The Arab League invaded Palestine. They did not attack Israel.

Palestine was already under attack by foreign forces before the 1948 war and that attack continues. There were already over 300,000 Palestinian refugees before the 1948 war.

Irrelevant as members of the arab league became Palestinians. And they did become members when the all Palestinian government ( Egypt and the arab league ) tried to declare independence on land already independent.

The arab league attacked the Jews in 1947, and then invaded the lands of Palestine illegally in May 1948. The words of the arab league leaders show that they were intent on the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

Then why didn't the UN make them refugees and set in place standard refugee policies, not set yo the UNWRA because the arab muslims did not have the two years residency required to be refugees. If the arab muslims had not left under their own free will they would not have been refugees, and the numbers you give happen to be the total population numbers for 1948 for the whole of Palestine. So how could arab muslims living in gaza and the west bank be refugees when they were on their home lands ?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel has consistently tried to play the nice guy in the middle east conflict.

Has it? Never noticed.

"What if Israel Quite Trying to Play the Nice Guy" Quit? When did it start?

May 15 1948, and you missed it all because you were too busy making up blood libels and propaganda to attack the Jews with.