Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Shusha]

Israel wants to prevent lawless people from building without permits and without community planning. Israel wants to discourage small villages all over the map in Area C, and build modern communities instead. Israel wants to ensure its security against its enemies.

Israel is not trying to steal the land of that particular family. Seriously, its 3500 dunams, who cares? Its trying to prevent illegal growth of a community where is makes no sense to have a larger community.

Link?

Link to what?

What do you want me to demonstrate?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Think of it from an American or Canadian perspective. Your family bought a patch of agricultural land in the 1930's. It is surrounded by State lands in all directions. There is a town a few miles off.

Most of the land in the area is not being used as agricultural land, except for your families small plot. The city planners want to turn that State land into, oh, say an industrial zone and build a highway through to the next town. It makes sense for the broad plan for the growing industry.

Obviously, the government can't just go in and steal the land owned by your family. That would be wrong. What they should do is offer you incentives to sell and move.

But, by the same token, obviously, you and your family can't build houses and schools and medical clinics and businesses on the land, even if it is owned by you, without consulting with the city planners. You certainly can't invite a bunch of friends to come over and do that. And you especially can't build on land which does not belong to your family. In other words, you are obligated not to change the character of the land.and its use without permission. You may end up with a small plot of farmland in the middle of an industrial zone. In which case, you deal with the consequences of that.

This is no different from anywhere in the US. You keep what you have -- but you don't get to add to it.

What any nation in this situation should do is grandfather the land in question for its original purpose. The owners can continue to use it for that purpose for as long as they want. But they can not make changes.

It is not the state. it is foreigners.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Ms Hind Khoury Bethlehem Secretary General of Kairos Palestine

 

[Shusha]

It is not the state. it is foreigners.

No, its not. Neither the Jewish people nor the Palestinians are foreigners.

But even if they were, the concept I outlined above would apply to a (foreign) Japanese family buying land in Ohio. People, individuals in a country, do not get to make their own rules about zoning and community planning. It would result in chaos. The government has the responsibility to create order and laws and then enforce them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is not the state. it is foreigners.

No, its not. Neither the Jewish people nor the Palestinians are foreigners.

But even if they were, the concept I outlined above would apply to a (foreign) Japanese family buying land in Ohio. People, individuals in a country, do not get to make their own rules about zoning and community planning. It would result in chaos. The government has the responsibility to create order and laws and then enforce them.

Bad analogy. The military occupation is not the state. It is a foreign occupation.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who are the Palestinians?

Diana Buttu

 

[Phoenall]

The Palestinians and international organizations are building illegal structures in a closed military zone.

Why should the Palestinians have to get permits from foreign assholes?

And the question she asked. Who would destroy a kindergarten? That is lower than whale shit.

because that is what they agreed to do, they cant make agreements and then go back on them when it does not suit them

 

[Phoenall]

Why should the Palestinians have to get permits from foreign assholes?

And the question she asked. Who would destroy a kindergarten? That is lower than whale shit.

Haha. Foreign assholes? Funny given that the village itself was founded by people from Jordan, and they had been there only a handful of years before the war.

The kindergarten was illegally built in a closed military zone. Why would people be exempt from the law because it is a kindergarten? Is that how you can circumvent the law? Just build an illegal kindergarten and then Israel will HAVE to let you stay? And then you can build a bunch of houses around it and whamo! cool new village that Israel can't touch.

The kindergarten was illegally built in a closed military zone. A zone where soldiers perform live fire exercises. Its DANGEROUS. Why would you let your children live in the middle of a military zone?

The kindergarten was illegally built in a closed military zone.

So, what foreign assholes called it a closed military zone?

Why don't you tell us, as the occupying nation are not foreign, they meet the criteria for citizenship of the area.

 

[Phoenall]

So, what foreign assholes called it a closed military zone?

Um. The ones with the guns who won the war defending themselves and their indigenous peoples against an enemy which announced it was going to massacre them and deny them self-determination on their ancestral lands.

Israel just wants to steal that land.

So why haven't they, and put rocks and sand in its place ?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel just wants to steal that land.

But you think it is ALL stolen land and that Israel should have no land. How is the conflict going to be resolved as long as that is the Palestinian position? It can't be. It can never be resolved.

Recognizing that the residents of Aqabah own clear title to approximately 3,500 dunams of registered (Tabo) land,

Aqabah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Israel just wants to steal that land.

Who issued the title and when. If it was after 1948 and by Jordan then it is illegal

 

[Phoenall]

It is not the state. it is foreigners.

No, its not. Neither the Jewish people nor the Palestinians are foreigners.

But even if they were, the concept I outlined above would apply to a (foreign) Japanese family buying land in Ohio. People, individuals in a country, do not get to make their own rules about zoning and community planning. It would result in chaos. The government has the responsibility to create order and laws and then enforce them.

Bad analogy. The military occupation is not the state. It is a foreign occupation.

Who says this is so?

 

[Phoenall]

Who are the Palestinians?

Diana Buttu

Yet more islamonazi propaganda

 

[Phoenall]

Think of it from an American or Canadian perspective. Your family bought a patch of agricultural land in the 1930's. It is surrounded by State lands in all directions. There is a town a few miles off.

Most of the land in the area is not being used as agricultural land, except for your families small plot. The city planners want to turn that State land into, oh, say an industrial zone and build a highway through to the next town. It makes sense for the broad plan for the growing industry.

Obviously, the government can't just go in and steal the land owned by your family. That would be wrong. What they should do is offer you incentives to sell and move.

But, by the same token, obviously, you and your family can't build houses and schools and medical clinics and businesses on the land, even if it is owned by you, without consulting with the city planners. You certainly can't invite a bunch of friends to come over and do that. And you especially can't build on land which does not belong to your family. In other words, you are obligated not to change the character of the land.and its use without permission. You may end up with a small plot of farmland in the middle of an industrial zone. In which case, you deal with the consequences of that.

This is no different from anywhere in the US. You keep what you have -- but you don't get to add to it.

What any nation in this situation should do is grandfather the land in question for its original purpose. The owners can continue to use it for that purpose for as long as they want. But they can not make changes.

It is not the state. it is foreigners.

Yes islamonazi foreigners that have invaded Jewish land

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel just wants to steal that land.

But you think it is ALL stolen land and that Israel should have no land. How is the conflict going to be resolved as long as that is the Palestinian position? It can't be. It can never be resolved.

Recognizing that the residents of Aqabah own clear title to approximately 3,500 dunams of registered (Tabo) land,

Aqabah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Israel just wants to steal that land.

Who issued the title and when. If it was after 1948 and by Jordan then it is illegal

They were there during the Mandate period but offhand I don't know it they were there before that.

 

[Phoenall]

Who are the Palestinians?

Ms Hind Khoury Bethlehem Secretary General of Kairos Palestine

Can you see who made the video. the letters are big enough

 

[Phoenall]

Israel just wants to steal that land.

But you think it is ALL stolen land and that Israel should have no land. How is the conflict going to be resolved as long as that is the Palestinian position? It can't be. It can never be resolved.

Recognizing that the residents of Aqabah own clear title to approximately 3,500 dunams of registered (Tabo) land,

Aqabah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Israel just wants to steal that land.

Who issued the title and when. If it was after 1948 and by Jordan then it is illegal

They were there during the Mandate period but offhand I don't know it they were there before that.

Did not answer the question as many squatters were there during the still ongoing mandate

 

[Shusha]

Bad analogy. The military occupation is not the state. It is a foreign occupation.

On the other thread you are arguing that occupiers have the obligation to provide for the welfare of the people. Which is it? Are they obligated to do so, or are they not? If they are -- surely they must not allow lawlessness.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Bad analogy. The military occupation is not the state. It is a foreign occupation.

On the other thread you are arguing that occupiers have the obligation to provide for the welfare of the people. Which is it? Are they obligated to do so, or are they not? If they are -- surely they must not allow lawlessness.

THE DUTY TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES TO THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY

It is the duty of the occupying power to ensure that the population is
provided with supplies to the fullest extent that it can.
What is meant by supplies? The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter. Also included are objects necessary for
religious worship. Obviously, a common-sense approach is required in
meeting the requirements of the law. In cold climates, for example, fuel
for heating may take priority.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

Private property cannot be confiscated.
Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
willfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian population from occupied territory are prohibited

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

ICRC service

 

[Shusha]

Yes, exactly. I am not advocating for the rights to be removed from the Palestinian people. I'm arguing FOR their rights. Their rights do not, however, extend to lawlessness.

 

[Hollie]

Bad analogy. The military occupation is not the state. It is a foreign occupation.

On the other thread you are arguing that occupiers have the obligation to provide for the welfare of the people. Which is it? Are they obligated to do so, or are they not? If they are -- surely they must not allow lawlessness.

THE DUTY TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES TO THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY

It is the duty of the occupying power to ensure that the population is
provided with supplies to the fullest extent that it can.
What is meant by supplies? The law refers to basic needs and to other
supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population in the occupied
territory. It specifies basic food and medical supplies as well as clothing,
bedding and means of shelter. Also included are objects necessary for
religious worship. Obviously, a common-sense approach is required in
meeting the requirements of the law. In cold climates, for example, fuel
for heating may take priority.

Destruction of property.
The occupying power is not allowed to destroy real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, to the State, to other public authorities or to social or co-operative organizations, except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations.

Private property cannot be confiscated.
Property used for religious purposes, for charity, education, or the arts
and sciences, must be treated as private property even if it belongs to
the State. Here the law is quite clear. It is forbidden to seize, destroy or
willfully damage such property. The same applies to historical monuments
and cultural property.

The occupying power must not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies.

Individual or mass forcible transfers and deportations of the civilian population from occupied territory are prohibited

The legal rights of the inhabitants of occupied territory cannot be curtailed by any agreement or other arrangement between the occupying power and the authorities of the occupied territory. This is intended to prevent national authorities from being put under pressure to make concessions which might not be in the population’s best interests or weaken its legal rights.

ICRC service

THE DUTY TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES TO THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY <------ note the use of all caps for dramatic affect!

All seriousness aside, tinny. There is no implied duty for anyone TO PROVIDE SUPPLIES TO THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY when the territory is not occupied or when an area is occupied by Islamic terrorists.

Supplying islamic terrorists with the means to continue acts of Islamic terrorism is an obligation carried by anyone.