Member of Knesset calls for internment camps for Families of Palestinian attackers

a reply to: voyger2

Except for the obviouse difference in spelling, can someone explain how Gaza is different from Warsaw.
At least on the face of it, it would appear there are some stark similarities beginning to show.

a reply to: tinymind

Except for the obviouse difference in spelling, can someone explain how Gaza is different from Warsaw.
At least on the face of it, it would appear there are some stark similarities beginning to show.

They are very different, but there is one similarity:
In 1939 Warsaw came under the rule of the Nazis.
In 2006 Gaza came under the rule of Hamas.

originally posted by: MaxMech
a reply to: tinymind

Except for the obviouse difference in spelling, can someone explain how Gaza is different from Warsaw.

At least on the face of it, it would appear there are some stark similarities beginning to show.

They are very different, but there is one similarity:

In 1939 Warsaw came under the rule of the Nazis.

In 2006 Gaza came under the rule of Hamas.

Then you are saying that in both instances, the leaders who were and are holding these people inside these gettos was elected by those people themselves? I though Hamas was only elected a few years ago, while the Palestinians have been confinded inside the Gaza refugee camps for many years.
Or maybe you are saying that people kept in small confind spaces are really just getting what they ask for and deserve?

Yeah. As if Palestine weren't already one big internment camp.

a reply to: tinymind

Then you are saying that in both instances, the leaders who were and are holding these people inside these gettos was elected by those people themselves? I though Hamas was only elected a few years ago, while the Palestinians have been confinded inside the Gaza refugee camps for many years.
Or maybe you are saying that people kept in small confind spaces are really just getting what they ask for and deserve?

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

In September 2011, a UN Panel of Inquiry, assigned by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, concluded in the Palmer Report that the naval blockade was legal, based on the right of self-defense during a period of war, and had to be judged isolated from the restrictions on goods reaching Gaza via the land crossings.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa
try not make this a circus... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights aplies to all humans of this planet. But for the zionist bashers, such as defense minister and others, like you, palestinians are "beasts".. again karma it will kick you in the back... don't worry.

I t only applies to those who have signed onto it though. thats all im saying.

But Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention (1949).

Applies to COUNTRIES ONLY if you go by the actual meaning. Palestine was never a country. and as such th e convention does not apply.

a reply to: MaxMech

So let's end the military occupation.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa
try not make this a circus... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights aplies to all humans of this planet. But for the zionist bashers, such as defense minister and others, like you, palestinians are "beasts".. again karma it will kick you in the back... don't worry.

I t only applies to those who have signed onto it though. thats all im saying.

But Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention (1949).

Applies to COUNTRIES ONLY if you go by the actual meaning. Palestine was never a country. and as such th e convention does not apply.

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa
try not make this a circus... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights aplies to all humans of this planet. But for the zionist bashers, such as defense minister and others, like you, palestinians are "beasts".. again karma it will kick you in the back... don't worry.

I t only applies to those who have signed onto it though. thats all im saying.

But Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention (1949).

Applies to COUNTRIES ONLY if you go by the actual meaning. Palestine was never a country. and as such th e convention does not apply.

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

The UN dont have th epower to create nations. its in the charter. that was th e previous iteration. palestines a AREA and no matter what you say its not a proper nation.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa
try not make this a circus... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights aplies to all humans of this planet. But for the zionist bashers, such as defense minister and others, like you, palestinians are "beasts".. again karma it will kick you in the back... don't worry.

I t only applies to those who have signed onto it though. thats all im saying.

But Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention (1949).

Applies to COUNTRIES ONLY if you go by the actual meaning. Palestine was never a country. and as such th e convention does not apply.

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

The UN dont have th epower to create nations. its in the charter. that was th e previous iteration. palestines a AREA and no matter what you say its not a proper nation.

It's rather strange when the State of Palestine becomes a signatory to the 4th GC, but it's not protected by it.

Following the United Nations General Assembly passing a resolution granting non-member observer state status to Palestine in November 2012, Palestine acceded to Conventions I-IV and Protocol I in April 2014.[30] In January 2015 Palestine acceded to Protocols II and III.[31]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: yuppa

It appears to me, you have some sort of "hang up" when it comes to Palestine being a "proper nation". Can you tell me, does this include a discription and/or deffiniton of said country by having an established border with in which the population of said country may reside?
If so, could you show me the established borders of Israel? I have seen a lot of maps of the middle east and they do not all agree with each other on this point.
If there are such borders for the nation of Israel, why do their leaders continue to expand the settlements for their people into other areas outside these borders. Under the Geneva Conventions which have been sited, this should constitue criminal acts of claiming "occupied territory" and illigal expansion outside their own country.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

So let's end the military occupation.

Let's.
The problem is that Hamas repeatedly anonses that it's goal is not an establishment of a Palestinian state, nor the end of the Gaza blocade, but replacing Israel with Palestine and drive all Israelis out of the region.

Today, we say, in a clear and unambiguous fashion: The armed resistance and armed struggle are our strategic choice and our path to liberate the Palestinian land, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and to drive the usurping invaders out of the blessed land of Palestine.
- Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya -

Israelis are afraid that ending the military occupation will not end the conflict, and will encourage Palestinians to continue to use terror tactics.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: yuppa

It appears to me, you have some sort of "hang up" when it comes to Palestine being a "proper nation". Can you tell me, does this include a discription and/or deffiniton of said country by having an established border with in which the population of said country may reside?
If so, could you show me the established borders of Israel? I have seen a lot of maps of the middle east and they do not all agree with each other on this point.
If there are such borders for the nation of Israel, why do their leaders continue to expand the settlements for their people into other areas outside these borders. Under the Geneva Conventions which have been sited, this should constitue criminal acts of claiming "occupied territory" and illigal expansion outside their own country.

See theres the Rub isnt it? Israel has tried to give back the lands its gotten after the 67 war but the nations it belongs to wont take it back and run it. Anything previous Israel bought or won before the rule of giving lands back. there ar eno true palestinian people just refugees from surounding nations. Jordan wont take their lands back because its full of undesirables(aka jordanian exiles) Same for the other countries involved.

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: coolieno99

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: yuppa
try not make this a circus... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights aplies to all humans of this planet. But for the zionist bashers, such as defense minister and others, like you, palestinians are "beasts".. again karma it will kick you in the back... don't worry.

I t only applies to those who have signed onto it though. thats all im saying.

But Israel is a signatory to the 4th Geneva Convention (1949).

Applies to COUNTRIES ONLY if you go by the actual meaning. Palestine was never a country. and as such th e convention does not apply.

The four 1949 Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states, both UN observers the Holy See and the State of Palestine, as well as the Cook Islands.

en.wikipedia.org...

The UN dont have th epower to create nations. its in the charter. that was th e previous iteration. palestines a AREA and no matter what you say its not a proper nation.

It's rather strange when the State of Palestine becomes a signatory to the 4th GC, but it's not protected by it.

Following the United Nations General Assembly passing a resolution granting non-member observer state status to Palestine in November 2012, Palestine acceded to Conventions I-IV and Protocol I in April 2014.[30] In January 2015 Palestine acceded to Protocols II and III.[31]

en.wikipedia.org...

You want a example of hypocracy? how many nations in the UN are muslim nations o r worship islam. They outnumber the ones who arent and always vote against anyone who they see as inferior.

IF the UN can grant nations existence it stands to reason it can revoke it too correct? WHy have they not done this? BECAUSE THEY CANT.

SO what they granted observer status. Still not a country and according to the word of the conventions are not a nation. the PLO(a terrorist organization) declared palestine a government but since when do we actually allow terrorist to make states or lay claim to something that isnt actually theirs?

the US didnt recognize the PLO as a government and until they do they will not have a country because veto. Egypt and JORDAN APPARENLY have CEDED control to the REfugees instead of dealing with them it seems upon further reading. Which SHOULD violate international law because they gave it to a terrorist organization.

a reply to: MaxMech

Does the Hamas represent all Palestinians ?
Are all Israelis supporters of Eretz Israel ?

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Does the Hamas represent all Palestinians ?

You right, it does not.
Basically you are suggesting to establish a Palestinian state in the west bank and leave the situation in Gaza as is, hoping that Gazans will replace the Hamas regime. After that, to expand the Palestinian state to Gaza as well.
Not a bad plan. Make sense to me.
IMO this is only possible if Israelis stop re electing right wing leaders.
For this to happen, they need to stop thinking about the Palestinians as terrorists and start thinking about them as peace partners. Palestinians can achieve this by stop using terror tactics and start focusing their efforts on political pressure.
For example: labeling of west bank products does a lot more for the Palestinian cause than suicide attacks.

Problem is that Palestinian terror organizations and Israeli right wing parties doing everything they can to prevent this.
Both know that their existence depend on each other:
- If a left wing government will be elected in Israel, a Palestinian state will be established (after negotiations). This will stop funding to terror organizations and make them obsolete, as they will have no goal.
- On the other hand, if terror organization stop existing, Israelis will stop being afraid from the Palestinians and a right wing leader (like Bibi) will never get re elected again.

Basically, Palestinian terror organizations like Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade etc, and Israeli right wing parties like Likud, The Jewish Home, Yisrael Beiteinu etc, are best friends. Both have motives to keep the conflict going.

a reply to: MaxMech

Another issue to consider as well is the impossibility to find someone in Israel who is willing to risk his political career advocating for the dismantlement of the settlements.
As long as Israel is considering it is the only one able to deal with local security issues ... Israel will be the only responsible if there are security problems. No one will never be able to enforce safety by causing more hate, it will never work.

If you consider the Green line and the Israeli wall, you could establish a buffer-zone / DMZ of some sort with foreign forces (preferably not from a monotheism-affiliated country) sandwiched between the two.
Yes, it may well be time for Israel to accept exterior help. And the fact that the Palestinians would not be dealing directly with the IDF is likely to lower the risk of incidents.

The individual behaviour of some hardcore settlers or religious nuts (muslim or jewish) will always have consequences.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I totally agree with you. A DMZ guarded by foreign forces is a good place to start. When both nations will learn to leave peacefully with each other, it can be removed.

One point. This is not accurate:

Another issue to consider as well is the impossibility to find someone in Israel who is willing to risk his political career advocating for the dismantlement of the settlements.

All the parties on the left are advocating for the dismantlement of the settlements and establishment of a Palestinian state:

a reply to: yuppa

I see we have another 'circular arguement" started here.
I say this because, as usual, a lot of people have no desire to actually discuss such matters, they find it much easier to simply bring in other points to argue.
I can only surmise that they are quite sure, or atleast afraid, they will soon be caught up in a corner; so they simply continue to circle.
As I stated in another posting, I refuse to participate in such; so I will just call my self the WINNER on this point.
That is until you can actually find a way to discuss one point at a time.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: yuppa

I see we have another 'circular arguement" started here.
I say this because, as usual, a lot of people have no desire to actually discuss such matters, they find it much easier to simply bring in other points to argue.
I can only surmise that they are quite sure, or atleast afraid, they will soon be caught up in a corner; so they simply continue to circle.
As I stated in another posting, I refuse to participate in such; so I will just call my self the WINNER on this point.
That is until you can actually find a way to discuss one point at a time.

Actually by not debating it you arent really the winner so to speak. You ceded the point by giving up. As to my previous posting i have learned of some recent events. Egypt,and jordan have give up their claim on the lands there to th e PLO. a terrorist organization. WHich by law is wrong to do,and as such since they have given up those lands rightfully who some can argue now belong to israel since the PLO isnt a true government.