Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your posts are empty of anything to show relevance.
Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your posts are empty of anything to show relevance.
I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, terrorism and "ICC" Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes) are different in terms of Jurisdiction, in terms of Venue and in terms of Elements to the Offenses.
(COMMENT)Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your posts are empty of anything to show relevance.
Terrorism is a crime that is investigated and prosecuted on Domestic (National) Law of the nation in which the perpetrator commits the offense. I showed you the crimes in which terrorism is based and the criteria used in the European Union (the same or similar criteria used for any crimes). And as examples I gave suicide bombers targeting restaurants, aircraft hijacking, and the Munich Olympic events, kidnap and murder of non-combatants (none of which you acknowledge or recognize). You are so convinced that the Palestinians can do no wrong internationally or otherwise, that it is not worth any further serious debate with you.
As far as ICC Criminal Codes are concerned, I don't believe we have discussed the Elements of the Offense to those issues; although some are very similar.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
If you are a felon today, you will be a felon tomorrow. If you are a terrorist today, you will still be a terrorist tomorrow. They were examples of real world events that Palestinians threatens even today; as a measure to coerce political objectives.
I also gave you the 2014 Output (Aug thru DEC) of the Global Database for terrorism events by HAMAS:
Most Respectfully,
R
How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh nonsense!
(COMMENT)I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
If you are a felon today, you will be a felon tomorrow. If you are a terrorist today, you will still be a terrorist tomorrow. They were examples of real world events that Palestinians threatens even today; as a measure to coerce political objectives.
I also gave you the 2014 Output (Aug thru DEC) of the Global Database for terrorism events by HAMAS:
Most Respectfully,
R
How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh nonsense!
(COMMENT)I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
If you are a felon today, you will be a felon tomorrow. If you are a terrorist today, you will still be a terrorist tomorrow. They were examples of real world events that Palestinians threatens even today; as a measure to coerce political objectives.
I also gave you the 2014 Output (Aug thru DEC) of the Global Database for terrorism events by HAMAS:
Most Respectfully,
R
What response are the Palestinians allowed for things like this?
Acts of Islamic terrorism perpetrated by Pal'istanians have continued since the '70s.I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, terrorism and "ICC" Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes) are different in terms of Jurisdiction, in terms of Venue and in terms of Elements to the Offenses.
(COMMENT)Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your posts are empty of anything to show relevance.
Terrorism is a crime that is investigated and prosecuted on Domestic (National) Law of the nation in which the perpetrator commits the offense. I showed you the crimes in which terrorism is based and the criteria used in the European Union (the same or similar criteria used for any crimes). And as examples I gave suicide bombers targeting restaurants, aircraft hijacking, and the Munich Olympic events, kidnap and murder of non-combatants (none of which you acknowledge or recognize). You are so convinced that the Palestinians can do no wrong internationally or otherwise, that it is not worth any further serious debate with you.
As far as ICC Criminal Codes are concerned, I don't believe we have discussed the Elements of the Offense to those issues; although some are very similar.
Most Respectfully,
R
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
(COMMENT)How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?
What response are the Palestinians allowed for things like this?
Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.P F Tinmore, et al,
Ah and this is how the discussion diverts from terrorism in context, to a border argument; the Palestinians Claim that Israel and all territory formerly under the Mandate is the sovereign territory of Palestine.
(COMMENT)How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?
What response are the Palestinians allowed for things like this?
The Palestinians, fail to recognize the state of Israel. They make this ridiculous assertion that territory to which Israel maintains sovereignty is somehow Palestinian Territory. When in fact the Arab Palestinian has not had sovereignty ever over the territory.
But I digress, the conversation was suppose to about "ICC Criminal Code violations."
If you want to change the topic, let me know.
Most Respectfully,
R
(COMMENT)Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.
I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.
Well I try to improve ones vocabulary Rocco......on here,my figures are truthful but my main objective is to expose the lack of truthful and fair reporting of the facts in Hollies prose.......not this myopic one sidedness of only Jewish deaths over the years during this schism,because the wording of such posts by Hollie,imply that only Jewish children have been killed moreover assuming that it is the Palestinians are the aggressors...which is completely untrue and the facts of the matter completely contradict Hollies often Hateful attitude towards Palestinians,an attitude more often than not endorsed by the Pro-Zionist lobby on here.Including yourself.theliq, et al,
Oh please, don't be such a drama queen.
Really: "10's of thousands of Palestinian Babies and Children SLAUGHTERED by Zionists" You should really right for the Electronic Intifada (EI). Your exaggerated and bent spin providing a biased interpretation of an events and data is just what they do. They would love you. And it is run by an American Freelance Journalist (Ali Abunimah) and a Dutch Politician (Arjan El Fassed). You would fit right in.
(COMMENT)Really Hollie,post by post you become more and more hiedious............sic.........you omitted the 10's of thousands of Palestinian Babies and Children SLAUGHTERED by Zionists and IDF..........No death is excusable but your 12 Israeli child hardly compares to the Palestinian children.
We agree that: The death of even one child, in preventable events and in discretionary combat, is one too many. But it happens. The reasons are many --- and not flattering to either side.
The Paradox here is that War (conflict between political entities and states) is a brutal and ugly enterprise. The violent nature (death and destruction) and the controversial social effect (the types and kinds of casualties --- AKA: The Body Count), has given rise to troubling moral questions that haven't been solved in over five millennium. Yet, inherent to the nature and concept of "war" is to bring ever better and more advanced weapon to bear on the opposing force in a manner that maximizes its killing potential. Now typically, the exchange between conventional forces results in opponents adjusting their tactics to increase their dispersion of forces so as to minimize the targets provided to the new weapons. And in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dispersion would be the key if the Customary Rules applied. The measurable casualty effects by opposing modern weapons results in far fewer casualties and far less destruction of military assets when dispersal measures are in play. However, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the face-off is NOT between conventional forces. One is conventional (Israel) and one is asymmetric (Palestinian). And in the case of the asymmetric (Palestinian) opponent --- they have to discover new methods of fighting in order render certain targetable assets immune from hostile Israeli fires. The Palestinians do the exact opposite. Instead of relocating their forces outside densely populated areas, and removing civilians (non-combatants) from the vicinity of their military operations, the Palestinians operate from within the densely populated areas, surrounded by civilians (non-combatants) so that any Israeli counter-strike will result in a measurable increase in casualties. (See Rule #23 --- and --- Rule #24, Customary IHL). The purpose of this particular tactic is to reduce the effectiveness of the new modern weapons used by the Israelis, and to raise the claim of "War Crimes" against the Israeli on strikes to Hostile Palestinian Targets operating in the close proximity of civilians [(non-combatants)(homes, women and children)], that result in collateral damage and casualties. This gives rise to sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
That brings us back to the troubling moral questions that haven't been solved in over five millennium. Does the Palestinian Cause give the right to disregard Customary International Humanitarian Law in the effort to achieve a Political Victory in the absence of a Military Victory? Many pro-Palestinians say: Yes! --- in that the General Assembly has given tacit approval and explicit guidance:
This, in effect, exempts the Palestinians from the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625) and the requirement to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State; and, Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war (A/RES/2/110) and the prevention of all forms of propaganda which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. More recently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has given tacit approval to the Palestinians to commit War Crimes, by publicly acknowledging that the ICC will conduct an "analysis in full independence and impartiality" into alleged war crimes by only Israel (not HAMAS/Palestinians). This, in itself, is a successful non-violent approach to politically defeat Israel as an opponent.
- A/RES/2649: (1970) "entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;"
- A/RES/3246: (1974) "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;"
- A/RES/33/24: (1978) "liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;"
In this regard, and based on the fact that both implied and explicit approval has been given to the Palestinians to engage in "any and all means" --- the second moral question arises: Should Israel be denied the practice of exchanging actions (reciprocity) with Palestinians for mutual combat, especially privileges granted by one the UN General Assembly and ICC to Palestinians?
The death of the children (highly exaggerated here), is very regrettable. But it was aggravated, advanced and politically exploited by pro-Palestinian resources to achieve political ends that the Palestinians were denied through peaceful means.
(COMMENT)You GLORIFY ZIONIST MURDERERS................Your are a CURR
Wow, now that is a linguistic tongue twister.
I assume you mean "CUR:"
The term "cur" refers to a mongrel dog. Originally the word cur referred to a certain British purpose-bred, short-tailed cattle droving dog known only from historical records, the cur dog, but in modern usage it applies to any mongrel. ( en.wikipedia.org )
I learned a new word.
Most Respectfully,
R
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you've made this point before.
The use of force by one state against another is generally NOT permissible under international law. If force is used or threatened, (as in the threat and use of force by HAMAS against Israel) however, states have an inherent right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Chapter VII). Article 51 supports , Article 2(7) (Chapter I) which provides that the UN shall not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member state.
The question you (P F Tinmore) put forth is profound, in that if Israel does not exist as an independent, self-governing and Sovereign State, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is essentially a civil war between constituent faction. Thus, the UN would have no Jurisdiction within either the territory know as Israel or the territory known as Palestine as in that recognized by the UN as sovereign territory to each. [See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine.]
International humanitarian law (IHL) distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:
• international armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and
• non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first treaty-based, permanent international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators like the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) from conducting indiscriminate attacks (Rule #11 Customary IHL) of the most serious crimes of international concern. The importance of this fact is in the Jurisdiction and defined prohibition under the Geneva Convention. In Additional Protocol II (pertaining to NIACs) does not contain this the equivalent of Rule #11 (Indiscriminate Attacks) whereas Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I (pertaining to IACs) does. Even though it has been argued that it is included by inference within the prohibition against making the civilian population the object of attack contained in Article 13(2).
Similarly, the ICCs Elements of the Offense for Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians includes: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
It is also important to note that relative to Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer: The Elements of the Offense also include the requirement that the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
THUS: If the claim that it is not an International Conflict or an NAIC in character, the ICC will not consider prosecution for some of the basic complaints presented by the Palestinians against the Israelis.
If, on the other hand, the character of the conflict is considered an IAC character, then all the HAMAS attacks (in deed all Palestinian attacks in/on Israel) are international in flavor and the both the criminal code and the terrorism laws are very much applicable. And that would make the entire data dump of Palestinian Attacks subject to prsecution for the hostile conduct in the attempt to intimidate and coerce Israelis in the furtherance of Palestinian political agendas.
I'm sure we went through this all once before.
(COMMENT)Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.
I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.
The Jewish People followed the UN recommendations pertaining to the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Borders are boundary lines that are recognized as marking a territory under which a sovereign entity has established and maintained control. If the Israelis defend it as a border, then it is a border, without regard to any argument the Palestinians may further. If the marked it, control it and govern it, then it is theirs.
Most Respectfully,
R
I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?P F Tinmore, et al,
Well, terrorism and "ICC" Crimes (Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, and War Crimes) are different in terms of Jurisdiction, in terms of Venue and in terms of Elements to the Offenses.
(COMMENT)Whenever I ask what criteria is used for the terrorist name calling or what international laws the Palestinians have violated, you respond with a page of crap without specifying any action.P F Tinmore, et al,
I don't think I've faded away from any discussion along this line.
(COMMENT)I don't think the Palestinians have committed war crimes. Perhaps the ICC knows this.
Every time I try to discuss this with you, you start dancing.
I don't think you've asked a direct question on this subject.
Most Respectfully,
R
Your posts are empty of anything to show relevance.
Terrorism is a crime that is investigated and prosecuted on Domestic (National) Law of the nation in which the perpetrator commits the offense. I showed you the crimes in which terrorism is based and the criteria used in the European Union (the same or similar criteria used for any crimes). And as examples I gave suicide bombers targeting restaurants, aircraft hijacking, and the Munich Olympic events, kidnap and murder of non-combatants (none of which you acknowledge or recognize). You are so convinced that the Palestinians can do no wrong internationally or otherwise, that it is not worth any further serious debate with you.
As far as ICC Criminal Codes are concerned, I don't believe we have discussed the Elements of the Offense to those issues; although some are very similar.
Most Respectfully,
R
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you've made this point before.
The use of force by one state against another is generally NOT permissible under international law. If force is used or threatened, (as in the threat and use of force by HAMAS against Israel) however, states have an inherent right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Chapter VII). Article 51 supports , Article 2(7) (Chapter I) which provides that the UN shall not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member state.
The question you (P F Tinmore) put forth is profound, in that if Israel does not exist as an independent, self-governing and Sovereign State, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is essentially a civil war between constituent faction. Thus, the UN would have no Jurisdiction within either the territory know as Israel or the territory known as Palestine as in that recognized by the UN as sovereign territory to each. [See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine.]
International humanitarian law (IHL) distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:
• international armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and
• non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first treaty-based, permanent international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators like the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) from conducting indiscriminate attacks (Rule #11 Customary IHL) of the most serious crimes of international concern. The importance of this fact is in the Jurisdiction and defined prohibition under the Geneva Convention. In Additional Protocol II (pertaining to NIACs) does not contain this the equivalent of Rule #11 (Indiscriminate Attacks) whereas Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I (pertaining to IACs) does. Even though it has been argued that it is included by inference within the prohibition against making the civilian population the object of attack contained in Article 13(2).
Similarly, the ICCs Elements of the Offense for Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians includes: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
It is also important to note that relative to Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer: The Elements of the Offense also include the requirement that the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
THUS: If the claim that it is not an International Conflict or an NAIC in character, the ICC will not consider prosecution for some of the basic complaints presented by the Palestinians against the Israelis.
If, on the other hand, the character of the conflict is considered an IAC character, then all the HAMAS attacks (in deed all Palestinian attacks in/on Israel) are international in flavor and the both the criminal code and the terrorism laws are very much applicable. And that would make the entire data dump of Palestinian Attacks subject to prsecution for the hostile conduct in the attempt to intimidate and coerce Israelis in the furtherance of Palestinian political agendas.
I'm sure we went through this all once before.
(COMMENT)Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.
I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.
The Jewish People followed the UN recommendations pertaining to the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Borders are boundary lines that are recognized as marking a territory under which a sovereign entity has established and maintained control. If the Israelis defend it as a border, then it is a border, without regard to any argument the Palestinians may further. If the marked it, control it and govern it, then it is theirs.
Most Respectfully,
R
How many of these attacks were outside Palestinian borders?P F Tinmore, et al,
Oh nonsense!
(COMMENT)I don't see how activities that were stopped in the '70s are related to current terrorist name calling. Why are you blowing that smoke?
Here again you are posting the law but leaving out the relevance.
If you are a felon today, you will be a felon tomorrow. If you are a terrorist today, you will still be a terrorist tomorrow. They were examples of real world events that Palestinians threatens even today; as a measure to coerce political objectives.
I also gave you the 2014 Output (Aug thru DEC) of the Global Database for terrorism events by HAMAS:
Most Respectfully,
R
What response are the Palestinians allowed for things like this?
P F Tinmore, et al,
Yes, you've made this point before.
The use of force by one state against another is generally NOT permissible under international law. If force is used or threatened, (as in the threat and use of force by HAMAS against Israel) however, states have an inherent right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter (Chapter VII). Article 51 supports , Article 2(7) (Chapter I) which provides that the UN shall not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a member state.
The question you (P F Tinmore) put forth is profound, in that if Israel does not exist as an independent, self-governing and Sovereign State, then the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is essentially a civil war between constituent faction. Thus, the UN would have no Jurisdiction within either the territory know as Israel or the territory known as Palestine as in that recognized by the UN as sovereign territory to each. [See A/RES/273 (III) (1949) for the recognition of Israel; and see A/RES/43/177 (1988) for the recognition of Palestine.]
International humanitarian law (IHL) distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:
• international armed conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and
• non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the first treaty-based, permanent international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators like the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) from conducting indiscriminate attacks (Rule #11 Customary IHL) of the most serious crimes of international concern. The importance of this fact is in the Jurisdiction and defined prohibition under the Geneva Convention. In Additional Protocol II (pertaining to NIACs) does not contain this the equivalent of Rule #11 (Indiscriminate Attacks) whereas Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I (pertaining to IACs) does. Even though it has been argued that it is included by inference within the prohibition against making the civilian population the object of attack contained in Article 13(2).
Similarly, the ICCs Elements of the Offense for Article 8 (2) (b) (i) War crime of attacking civilians includes: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
It is also important to note that relative to Article 8 (2) (a) (vii)-1 War crime of unlawful deportation and transfer: The Elements of the Offense also include the requirement that the conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict (IAC).
THUS: If the claim that it is not an International Conflict or an NAIC in character, the ICC will not consider prosecution for some of the basic complaints presented by the Palestinians against the Israelis.
If, on the other hand, the character of the conflict is considered an IAC character, then all the HAMAS attacks (in deed all Palestinian attacks in/on Israel) are international in flavor and the both the criminal code and the terrorism laws are very much applicable. And that would make the entire data dump of Palestinian Attacks subject to prsecution for the hostile conduct in the attempt to intimidate and coerce Israelis in the furtherance of Palestinian political agendas.
I'm sure we went through this all once before.
(COMMENT)Territory is of prime importance. If I kill somebody in my house it is a very different act than if I kill somebody in his house. One would be defensive the other would be aggressive.
I think that Israel's claim to territory is merely say so without any documentation to back up that assertion. You have avoided a fact based discussion on this issue.
The Jewish People followed the UN recommendations pertaining to the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
Borders are boundary lines that are recognized as marking a territory under which a sovereign entity has established and maintained control. If the Israelis defend it as a border, then it is a border, without regard to any argument the Palestinians may further. If the marked it, control it and govern it, then it is theirs.
Most Respectfully,
RThe Jewish People followed the UN recommendations pertaining to the Steps Preparatory to Independence.
You can put that away. Nothing of the sort ever happened. The UN and the creation of Israel were completely separate. There was no compliance of anything UN by Israel.
