Some folks believe that ALL Palestinian adults in the West Bank and Gaza, are "enemies" of the State of Israel, and should be treated as such. The children? They should suffer the same fate as their parents. Do you agree?
The Palestinians are the inferior in their own land. They suffer greatly from settlers though I appreciate that not all settlers attack them, stop them from being able to work, steal their land or burn their crops, enough do. In such a situation it is necessary to work to create trust. I came upon this man a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Froman I found a video on You tube on settlers who were moved by him. They had made friends with the Palestinians in their area and refused to allow their children to steal or abuse the Palestinians. Their hope was that if there was a Palestinian State they could stay there. Below is not that film but a trailer to a film about his work. A very spiritual man I would say. [video=youtube;jkrMh22szsw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkrMh22szsw#t=19[/video] You can read about his influence at the link below beneath the trailer. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/a-third-way-settlers-and-palestinians-as-neighbors
well, they are treated that way. whether or not they have committed any crimes against Israel. for some people, simply being Palestinian is a crime.
Indeed that was what I meant. I don't think either of them like each other at the moment. That is why a different approach is needed, an example being the one of Rabbi Froman and those he touched. There is very little trust from the Palestinians to any Jew. Even when people first came to help them with when they suffer evictions in the dead of night from their East Jerusalem homes, it took some time for them to trust them....but they did once they understood they had genuinely come to help them.
Not all Muslim/Arabs are Terrorists but we find of late that most Terrorists are Muslims/Arabs!!!!!!!!!!!!! Terrorism Defies Definition ~by Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld The Washington Times October 24, 2014 http://www.danielpipes.org/15066/terrorism-definition Be the first of your friends to like this. Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important consequences in U.S. law. Terrorism suspects can be held longer than criminal suspects after arrest without an indictment They can be interrogated without a lawyer present. They receive longer prison sentences. "Terrorist inmates" are subject to many extra restrictions known as Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. The "Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002" gives corporate victims of terrorism special breaks (it is currently up for renewal) and protects owners of buildings from certain lawsuits. When terrorism is invoked, families of victims, such as of the 2009 Ft. Hood attack, win extra benefits such as tax breaks, life insurance, and combat-related pay. They can even be handed a New York City skyscraper. The "Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002" greatly increased the importance of defining what "terrorism" means. Despite the legal power of this term, however, terrorism remains undefined beyond a vague sense of "a non-state actor attacking civilian targets to spread fear for some putative political goal." One study, Political Terrorism, lists 109 definitions. American security specialist David Tucker wryly remarks that "Above the gates of hell is the warning that all that who enter should abandon hope. Less dire but to the same effect is the warning given to those who try to define terrorism." The Israeli counterterrorism specialist Boaz Ganor jokes that "The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself." This lack of specificity wreaks chaos, especially among police, prosecutors, politicians, press, and professors. "Violence carried out in connection with an internationally sanctioned terrorist group" such as Al-Qaeda, Hizbullah, or Hamas has become the working police definition of terrorism. This explains such peculiar statements after an attack as, "We have not found any links to terrorism," which absurdly implies that "lone wolves" are never terrorists. If they are not terrorists, the police must find other explanation to account for their acts of violence. Usually, they offer up some personal problem: insanity, family tensions, a work dispute, "teen immigrant angst," a prescription drug, or even a turbulent airplane ride. Emphasizing personal demons over ideology, they focus on an perpetrator's (usually irrelevant) private life, ignoring his far more significant political motives. But then, inconsistently, they do not require some connection to an international group. When Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez shot eight rounds at the White House in November 2011, the U.S. attorney asserted that "Firing an assault rifle at the White House to make a political statement is terrorism, plain and simple" – no international terrorist group needed. Similarly, after Paul Anthony Ciancia went on a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in November 2013, killing a TSA officer, the indictment accused him of "substantial planning and premeditation to cause the death of a person and to commit an act of terrorism." This terminological irregularity breads utter confusion. The whole world calls the Boston Marathon bombings terrorism – except the Department of the Treasury, which, 1½ years on "has not determined that there has been an 'act of terrorism' under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act." The judge presiding over the terrorism trial in January 2014 of Jose Pimentel, accused of planning to set off pipe bombs in Manhattan, denied the prosecution's request for an expert to justify a charge of terrorism. Government officials sometimes just throw up their hands: Asked in June 2013 if the U.S. government considers the Taliban a terrorist group, the State Department spokeswoman replied "Well, I'm not sure how they're defined at this particular moment." The whole world, except of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, sees the Boston Marathon bombings as terrorism. A May 2013 shooting in New Orleans, which injured 19, was even more muddled. An FBI spokeswoman called it not terrorism but "strictly an act of street violence." The mayor disagreed; asked if he considered it terrorism, he said "I think so," because families "are afraid of going outside." Challenged to disentangle this contradiction, a supervisory special agent in the FBI's New Orleans field made matters even more opaque: "You can say this is definitely urban terrorism; it's urban terror. But from the FBI standpoint and for what we deal with on a national level, it's not what we consider terrorism, per se." Got that? The U.S. Department of State has yet to figure out whether the Taliban are or are not terrorists. This lack of clarity presents a significant public policy challenge. Terrorism, with all its legal and financial implications, cannot remain a vague, subjective concept but requires a precise and accurate definition, consistently applied. Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum, where Teri Blumenfeld is a researcher. © 2014 All rights reserved by Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld. Do you agree?
Londoners Will Never Forget What They Saw at This ISIS Sex-Slave Market https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnyqYd3W_0#t= Speaking of slavery... here is a VIDEO as proof positive of what transpires in the streets of some cities. This is a demonstration to prove the point... HB Kurdish activists presented a demonstration recently on the streets of London, a re-enactment of events they say are happening daily in areas controlled by the ISIS terrorist group. The performance left viewers horrified. Women clad in full niqab were chained together at the wrists and crying out as their male captors pushed them to the ground. A man in the audience called out, “I’ll give you 50 dollars.” “She’s a virgin, I’ll need more than 50,” responds the man running the auction responds over his megaphone. IJReview interviewed Karam Kruda (the man with the megaphone in the video), and asked him why his group had decided to present the play. I’d just like to say that the idea behind the event was initially from my friend Ari Murad- the videographer. We wanted to shock people into awareness by bringing onto the streets of London what happens in the Islamic State daily. We wanted them to see how ISIS is bringing back practices from centuries ago. In reality, the barbaric nature of their actions and why it so desperately needs to be kept from spreading. When women are sold like poultry in a bazaar it is inhumane and tear-jerking. Many of the girls managed to call their families on mobile phones whilst in the brothels and said please, please bomb us. When you hear about instances like that, you just want the world to feel it too. The text below the YouTube video of the demonstration continues the explanation: Since its inception The Islamic State has been capturing all the consider infidels and selling them in make shift sex markets all across Syria and Iraq. Their brutality is so overwhelmingly shocking that most testimonies only result in broken down tears. According to the video, the United Nations has reported that since August 2014, just two months ago, more than 25,000 women and girls have been kidnapped into sex slavery.
all Palestinians are the enemy of Israel and should be treated as enemies? bull(*)(*)(*)(*). and its illegal under international law. including the Mandate for Palestine and the Balfour Declaration.
I don't know. Do the Palestinians as a people view Israel as the enemy? Its seems to me they do, and their leaders whom they supposedly elected do. Many palestian parents that don't seem to mind their kids throwing rocks at Isaeli soldiers. From what I read--Palestinians that don't hate Israel enough or who help them stop terror are gunned down in the street by Palestinian thugs. Personally---I wouldn't trust the adults or the kids. Blame the parents if you wish...they are perpetuating this dark culture of death. Palestine has had enough resources from the world---including Israel to have a decent society. But the concrete is used for Tunnels and the schools are used to house weapons..
belligerent military occupation. by definition the inhabitants of the occupied territories are considered the enemy, albeit a conquered enemy. Why is this internationally recognized concept ignored by the virulent anti-Zionists around here? I can understand jew haters refusing to accept facts and cling to lies and misrepresentations, but why would people who merely oppose Israel wish to use the exact same tactics of ignoring facts and being disingenuous? If one cannot make their case with facts, truth and reality, then it ain't much of a case to begin with.
The 4th Geneva Conventions, which deals with the treatment of occupied peoples in land occupied during wartime, nowhere says anything about these people being treated as enemies. on the contrary, it stipulates the rights and privilages of such people, and how the occupying power is supposed to treat them. and btw, Israel signed the 4th Geneva Conventions.
No they haven't... The Israelis have received more US foreign aid for longer than any country in history and they have a tiny population. Compare foreign aid to Israel with US foreign aid to Haiti which has ten million people. Every Palestinian has lost friends or family, homes, businesses, farms, orchards, mosques and schools to the European immigrants.. Throwing rocks is a small thing when you are standing against bulldozers and armed soldiers. Before 1967 they didn't have to deal with check points and Israeli soldiers everywhere.
I guess the concept of a military occupation is lost on you. I am fully aware that Israel signed the 4th GC. Wanna get into that debate, start a new thread. Not that I don't think Israel has contravened some of its provisions, but near as I can tell, no belligerent occupier hasn't. Of course, its not like the Palestinians aren't also bound by them since the 1993 UNSC resolution that the provisions of the 4th have passed into the body of accepted international law and are therefore binding on all non-signatory nations as well.
Like Jonsa has already mentioned... it seems that you are lost in English nuances... do not be offended as an Israeli I do it sometimes myself. The Land that you consider occupied is a PLO notion... Israel liberated that Land from 19 years of Jordanian yoke... the PLO has nothing to do with that for they were never an 'Independent Country' and we did not do battle with them. In fact, I am sorry now that we did not do battle with them for their cause would not be accelerated by people who misinterpret the IV Geneva Convention. Prof. Boris Shusteff 11/16/97 writes... Jordan seeks again encouragement to persist in its war against Israel. If Jordan finds such encouragement, it will of course, draw the appropriate conclusions and the Middle East will have to brace itself for more hostility and conflict. As on numerous occasions in the past, the present situation calls for clear, unequivocal summons to disavow belligerency, to terminate warfare, to move onward to peace--the only hope for the nations of the Middle East." One has only to replace "Amman Government" and "Jordan" with "PLO" and "Palestinian Authority" respectively and Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold has a ready rebuke to the latest UN resolution. Not a single country, of the 139 countries that voted for the resolution, existed at the time when Jerusalem became the capital of the Ancient Jewish State. After it was barbarously destroyed, for two thousand years, every day, three times a day, Jews all over the world have prayed, "From Thine abode, our King, appear and rule over us, for we await thee. When wilt Thou again reign in Zion. Soon in our day Thou shalt dwell there forever. Thou shalt be magnified and sanctified in Jerusalem, Thy City, for all generations, forever and ever. And our eyes shall behold thy kingdom, as said in songs of thy glory sung by David, Thy truly anointed one." The struggle of the Jewish people for survival is as ancient as the world itself. The latest UN resolution is only one new manifestation of anti-Semitism. Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin wrote in their book, Why the Jews?, "Jew-hatred and its latest incarnation, Israel-hatred, are the price Jews pay for their role in history. They pay it often unwillingly and they live the role, for the most part unwittingly. But as the great French Catholic theologian Jacques Maritain noted: 'Israel...is to be found at the very heart of the worlds structure, stimulating it, exasperating it, moving it. Like an alien body, like an activating ferment injected into the mass, it gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as the world has not God, it stimulates the movement of history...It is the vocation of Israel which the world hates. '" To escape the anti-Semitism of non-Jewish societies the Jews abandoned them. They returned to Eretz Israel and reestablished the Jewish state. They were not nave and understood very well that the anti-Semitism would not disappear all at once. Anti-Semitism must be fought. It is a long and difficult struggle. As Prager and Telushkin wrote, The only solution to anti-Semitism is for the Jews to affect the values of non-Jews. All other attempts to end anti-Semitism are doomed to failure. They only buy time until the next eruption." The UN does not hold anti-Semitism in contempt. On the contrary, it is notorious for its anti-Semitic position. It has passed hundreds of anti-Israeli resolutions. When, in 1975, it passed a criminal resolution equating Zionism with racism, the UN delegate from Costa-Rica noted that the resolution "was an invitation to genocide against the Jewish people." It is a shame that so many countries are following in the wake of the UN’s anti-Semitic policy. It is time to repeat for them what Zeev Zhabotinsky wrote in 1911. "...Nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change and we do not want to." Bibliography: - Prof. Boris Shusteff 11/16/97
Well this is our country and we will do what is necessary to feel safe. If the Arabs do not like it they can move to the 21 countries created for their Self Determination this past Century. Now another jolly good one you want to pass to the naive reader i.e. <Shahidin> = Martyrs and boys like pearls misinterpreted as <translucent boys> how cute. Even the word <Jihad> was interpreted as <inner struggle> when in reality it is a deadly war against the <Kafirun> non believer in Islam... Now about the 72 Virgins and boys like pearls in Muslim Paradise there is a true interpretation and even a song on the subject matter... I urge the reader to listen to the melody and read further. Here is the song: “Countless Virgins (A Martyr’s Lullaby)” -- below is an explanation of how it came about. http://www.magiclampmusic.com/Countless_Virgins_Lyrics.htm After the events of 9/11, I tried to come to grips with why anyone would participate in a suicide mission that was designed to kill thousands of innocent people. I had heard rumors about the Islamic “martyr’s reward” and looked it up on the web. Essentially, those who die or commit suicide in order to further jihad believe that they will go directly to paradise; they face no further judgment and none of the obligatory time in purgatory. In addition, paradise (for men, anyway) is described in the authoritative collection “Sunan al-Tirmidhi” in the section called "The Book of Description of the Garden," chapter 23, titled "The least reward for the people of Heaven," Hadith number 2562. It states: “The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby, as [wide as the distance] between al-Jaabiyya and San’a." That these 72 wives are virgin is confirmed by Quran (55:74) and commentaries on that verse. The quote above, and the comment regarding the confirmed virginity of the 72 wives I obtained from this website: http://bahai-library.org/theses/dying/dying4.islam.html An interesting testament, “Anwar Shaikh: The Autobiography of an Apostate” is published at http://www.secularislam.org/skeptics/anwar.htm A quote from Anwar Shaikh: “I regret to say that 1947 was the darkest period of my life. We were told that murdering the non-Muslims, seducing their wives, burning their properties, was an act of Jihad, that is Holy War. And Jihad is the most sacred duty of a Muslim because it guarantees him a safe passage to paradise where no fewer than 72 houris, that is the most beautiful virgins, and pearl-like boys wait for him. Such a reward is a great temptation!” Thoughts of the martyrs' reward have haunted me ever since. Here is the song: “Countless Virgins (A Martyr’s Lullaby)” Countless Virgins (The Martyr’s Lullaby) Lyrics and Music by Jeanne O’Lone Click here for the MP3: Countless Virgins http://www.magiclampmusic.com/Countless_Virgins_Lyrics.htm You received your instruction from a man who claimed to know your Lord; and as part of your seduction, you were promised this fine reward: “Countless Virgins will await you when you wake in paradise, And the mercy you seek from Allah shall unfold before your eyes.” Were you flushed with hot ambition as he spoke about Jihad? Did you think you had permission and the blessings of your God? “Countless Virgins will await you when you wake in paradise, And the mercy you seek from Allah shall unfold before your eyes.” On the eve of your transgression, did you seek comfort from God above? Did you think how your aggression might finally hurt the ones you love? But: “Countless Virgins await you when you wake in paradise And the mercy you seek from Allah shall unfold before your eyes.” Sweaty nights with sleep eluding, did you pray as you lay brooding, “God is great, yes, God is good, he will reward me as he should?” On the day of your cruel mission, through their screams and through their cries, Did you feel an intuition that ahead lay a surprise? Because the virgins who await you are the unborn of those you slew, And the mercy you seek from Allah they will never show to you. Yes, the virgins who await you have a mission of their own; Sent by Allah to ensure that for your sins you shall atone. © 2001 Jeanne O’Lone/Magic Lamp Music
Yep, they made the wrong choice 1967....and 1948 for that matter. I don't shed tears. I back Israel and and its agenda to survive. You back Palestine and its agenda which is to destroy Israel. That is how it is and thus we will obviously always disagree.
the VAST majority of the land in the West Bank was owned by Arabs, and did not belong to Israel and was not given to Israel in the 1947 Partition Plan. Therefore its dishonest and absurd to say that Israel "liberated" the land, as it was never theirs to liberate.
it would be if there was ANYONE around to enforce the law. If laws can be broken with impunity then those laws are more like guidelines since there are no legal repercussions.
The Arabs like the Palestinians also lived in 21 countries.. they didn't immigrate from Russia and Europe..
The Arab Israelis are not basically different from Armenian ones, who have been living there even 400 years longer.
Anyone has the right to be a pain in the butt, but you have abused the privilege. The Mandate was for a Jewish homeland -- the beneficiaries (a strange term in this instance) were the Jews. On November 29, 1947,. the general assembly adopted the key 'partition' resolution, Resol. 181, ratifying the British proposal. It also provided for an independent international mixed status for Palestine. In my opinion, this resolution constitutes the first, last, and legally authorized demarcation of the Israeli Palestine borders. It was legally authoritative not because it took the form of a UN Resolution, but solely because the UN Resolution itself served as a ratification of the British proposal to divide the Mandate and leave its governance to the people. Now the Resolution carries no weight in international law because General Assembly resolutions are ONLY recommendations. It would have been written into law had both parties agreed. A border is established if the parties on both sides of the line agree that is the border. But the Arabs refused immediately and that rendered the partition proposal null and void. I very strongly recommend that you access and study the content of this site. http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/mandate for palestine/MandateN2%20-%2010-29-07-English.pdf
and according to the Balfour Declaration, San Remo Conference, and Mandate for Palestine, that Jewish homeland in Palestine was conditional upon the full respect for non-Jewish rights in Palestine. Israel has violated those rights, time and time again. - - - Updated - - - the laws will be enforced once Israel is charged with war crimes.
