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

a reply to: yuppa

Must admit, don't know a whole lot about debating. I had always thought it was to be the "point to counter-point" discussion of certain agreed upon positions and pertinent information pertaining to those positions.
You, as well as some others, always want to jump from point to point without regard to any established corrilation of these points to the discussion at hand.
This is the "circular argument" statagy which is not debating at all, simply a means of thying to wear down and frustrate anyone who will engage with you in such discussions.

Again, I state a challenge, as it were, for you to present the "diffined borders" of the nation of Israel before any further discussion can go forward. If, as you stated, other countries have relinquished their claims to lands of the region, it would not be ossible for any other "established" country to put forth a claim to them with out changing their own borders and re-establishing their borders with all of their neighboring countries. I don't see this happening within a region as volital as the middle-east.

This would be like your finding five acres of unclaimed property which ajoins yours and just put a fence around it and claiming it for your own. This could be done, but it could also bring about some undesired consiquences.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: yuppa

This would be like your finding five acres of unclaimed property which ajoins yours and just put a fence around it and claiming it for your own. This could be done, but it could also bring about some undesired consiquences.

ACTUALLY, it would be more like your three neighbors attacked you at the same time by land and air and then you whooped their asses and seized the land that they abandoned to homeless bums.

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: tinymind

a reply to: yuppa



This would be like your finding five acres of unclaimed property which ajoins yours and just put a fence around it and claiming it for your own. This could be done, but it could also bring about some undesired consiquences.

ACTUALLY, it would be more like your three neighbors attacked you at the same time by land and air and then you whooped their asses and seized the land that they abandoned to homeless bums.

ACTUALLY, what you speak of is called "occupation". And building settlments on this land is directly against the GC. This land still belongs to the original countries being occupied by an outside military force and can not be claimed by the occupier.

This IS the Palestinian problem in a nutshell. This is it. Institutional discrimination by the Israeli government. It looks a lot like aparthied to me.

it would seem to me that in a volitile situation like this you would be looking at ways to make peace, yes?

I love Jews just like I love all people, so don't get confused. I am against the persecution of any people.

originally posted by: tinymind

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: tinymind

a reply to: yuppa



This would be like your finding five acres of unclaimed property which ajoins yours and just put a fence around it and claiming it for your own. This could be done, but it could also bring about some undesired consiquences.

ACTUALLY, it would be more like your three neighbors attacked you at the same time by land and air and then you whooped their asses and seized the land that they abandoned to homeless bums.

ACTUALLY, what you speak of is called "occupation". And building settlments on this land is directly against the GC. This land still belongs to the original countries being occupied by an outside military force and can not be claimed by the occupier.

No th e land DOES NOT belong to the countries that had it anymore they CEDED IT TO THE PLO. In 2015 btw. they gave up th e claim to a ILLEGAL BODY though and as such The PLO is not recognized by the US and her allies as a legit government. In other words the original owners gave the land away to someone un elligible to run it let alone become a nation. If Palestine could become a nation THEN you would have a point BUT until the US agrees to it it will not happen.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: yuppa

Must admit, don't know a whole lot about debating. I had always thought it was to be the "point to counter-point" discussion of certain agreed upon positions and pertinent information pertaining to those positions.
You, as well as some others, always want to jump from point to point without regard to any established corrilation of these points to the discussion at hand.
This is the "circular argument" statagy which is not debating at all, simply a means of thying to wear down and frustrate anyone who will engage with you in such discussions.

Again, I state a challenge, as it were, for you to present the "diffined borders" of the nation of Israel before any further discussion can go forward. If, as you stated, other countries have relinquished their claims to lands of the region, it would not be ossible for any other "established" country to put forth a claim to them with out changing their own borders and re-establishing their borders with all of their neighboring countries. I don't see this happening within a region as volital as the middle-east.

This would be like your finding five acres of unclaimed property which ajoins yours and just put a fence around it and claiming it for your own. This could be done, but it could also bring about some undesired consiquences.

the Current shape of Israel on the map IS its borders which you can look up. The map made AFTER 67 and the 6 day war. Since Jordan and egypt gave up their claims on the land there to a illegal entity such as the PLO and not the PLA specifically they are not able to become a country. Look it up who they gave the land to. th ePLO. a terrorist organization.

originally posted by: yuppa

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.

If your argument is true, Then why don't the Israeli government just annex the West Bank? No one is stopping them.

a reply to: MaxMech

originally posted by: MaxMech

Personally I don't think the Zionist union is likely to have a progressive stance on the settlements, Yesh Atid may well agree with the Joint list and the Meretz.
The J14 movement is also a constructive example on that topic coming from the civilian society.

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: 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.

If your argument is true, Then why don't the Israeli government just annex the West Bank? No one is stopping them.

The same reason the PLO cannot become a government. It would take the permanent members agreeing to let israel take the land over. OR make EGYPT and JORDAN take it back. They just didnt want to deal with the people there and want someone else to shoulder the blame and cost. lazy leadership.

a reply to: yuppa

In order to discuss this topic in its proper perspective, we should first examine and become familiar with basic facts which have brought the region to its current position.
Since the basic topic involved is the land itself, we likely should establish which parties are to be properly represented as having established and accepted rights to the land. Many would point to the “Balfour Declaration” as being foundation for the establishment of the state of Israel. I have included this document, below, as evidence which is directly opposite to this line of thought. In actuality, it states that the civil and religious rights of the people who live there should not be denied to them. There is also no mention of any establishment of a “new and/or separate nation” for the Jewish people

The Balfour Declaration (it its entirety)
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
history1900s.about.com...

In order to better appreciate just how the current situation has come about, we should also remember those who were negotiating the various aspects with the parties in the middle-east at the time. The primary player in this was the British. Who, did then and continue to, have a reputation of making any kind of deal which best suits their own interests and don’t seem to mind if conflicts arise between any other parties which may be involved. This is quite obvious when we examine the “Reglement Organique Agreements”. (as can be seen below)

In the areas with Maronite, Orthodox, and Druze populations the Great Powers were still bound by an international agreement regarding non-intervention, the Reglement Organique Agreements of June 1861 and September 1864. During a War Cabinet meeting on policy regarding Syria and Palestine held on 5 December 1918, it was stated that Palestine had been included in the areas the United Kingdom had pledged would be Arab and independent in the future. The Chair, Lord Curzon, also noted that the rights that had been granted to the French under the terms of the Sykes–Picot Agreement violated the provisions of the Reglement Organique Agreements and the war aims of the other Allies.
In the Anglo-French Declaration of 7 November 1918 the two governments stated that
The object aimed at by France and the United Kingdom in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.
en.wikipedia.org...

As can be seen in these documents, as represented by only these excerpts, not only did the British not have any rights, unless you count that given them by the League of Nations which itself is very questionable, for the use or dispersal of the land in question; they were consciously deceptive in their negotiations and agreements with the all other parties involved.

Even after the Jews of Europe began to immigrate to Palestine, which is the established name of the region where they moved, under the pretences of the Balfour Declaration, they soon preceded to not only overstep the spirit of the agreement, which they insisted others should honor, they rapidly began to discredit this same agreement by not holding themselves to the restrains place upon them. This becomes quite evident when indigenous Arabs began to be forced from the homes of their fathers’ and much of their religious and cultural centers came under direct attacks by the Jewish settlers, which continues today.

It is because of these flawed and failed agreements from those who lived outside and held no legitimate claims within the region, which makes it so hard for those who are native to the area to accept the presents of those who have moved in and now claim these lands as their own. Of course, it doesn’t help matters very much when you consider these people have had the financial and military backing of the most powerful nation in the world in their efforts to continue the occupation of this land.

Many people have stated that there “never was a Palestine, so there cannot be a Palestinian people”. The only trouble with this is how much it sounds so much like saying; before there was a United States, there never was a New York so there can never be any New Yorkers. People normally take the name of their land to identify themselves, so how could there never have been any Palestinians if there was a land recognized as Palestine?

All in all, when looked at from this perspective, who could not help but see the state of Israel as being illegitimate and its claims as illegal. It is therefore necessary to conclude that the indigenous people should be able to hold and maintain all the rights and privileges which are normally associated with ownership of their own lands. As has been mentioned, the so called borders of Israel will change, depending upon the maps which are being viewed. This is because there has never been any permanent affixed border which defines its territory because legally there is none. Even though there are many nations which recognize it as a nation-state, it has no legitimacy to exist.

Oh, and before any one attempts to label this as some kind of “anti-semitic” rhetoric, I would suggest you do some research concerning the truth based facts as presented. I, personally, would feel and say the same things if it were my mother involved. You see right is right, no matter how much you may want to honey coat a situation.

Balfour declaration. was that ever legally binding and voted on by the Lague of nations? And There IS a legally defined border of Israel . Its in the Lague of nations papers.They themselves had power to create nations(they made egypt,and others too btw) the current UN lacks that Direct power. EVeryone has to unanimiously vote yes in th e UN.

Your opinion dont matter. the League of nations was in the right when they created Israel. Its LEgally binding. Not trying to sugar coat anything.

As to "never being a palestine" thats historically true btw. there was a AREA called that but not a country ever recognized in the past or present.

Also a WESTERN POWER who came and enslaved the area renamed it from its recognized name to "palestinia" If i recall thats in todays world wont fly will it so why continue to call it by its illegally given name? Because its a INSULT thats why. Cesear made sure to screw with them until they died out. Even went so far as to have maps redrawn and changed as well.

You seem to had forgotten that "alot of these indegnious people" were also Jewish,and later on invited their relatives from all over th e world to immigrate there. They called themselves Jeiwish palestinians. not because it was a country but because it is the area they lived in alone.

Im sorry but alot of your facts are lacking. if th elague of nations didnt have th e power to create nations back then and borders then almost all the middle eastern countries are not countries either according to your opinion. IF we are being Fair that is right?

a reply to: tinymind

i was talking about the six day war. but "occupation" uh huh..

a reply to: dashen

Yes, I understand.

We were both referring to the same events. There are statement contained in the Geneva Convention concerning the use and disposition of lands taken and "occupied" during and after military conflicts.
After WW2, the US "occupied" parts of Germany and Japan, but because of the GC we did not establish settlements for Americans in either place. Amoung other things which could be mentioned.

a reply to: yuppa

I am well aware of how much anyone's opinions matter, within the greater matters of truth. Which I hope can always be stated to those who are willing to listen. As Jesus has been quoted as saying, "every man with ears, let him hear.."

Just read over some background information about the "League of Nations" and its history. I also looked up a listing of the member states, but did not find Isreal's name anywhere amoung them. One would think a newly eztablished nation would be greatful enough to join a governing body which gave them exiztance. Well, I guess that's gratitude for you.
I was wondering though, since the U S seems to always vote, or veto votes, which are much in line with the interests of Israel, could you tell me how we voted when it was established through the League of Nations? As I said, I looked through its history and membership, but may have missed some of the things I was expecting to find.

Main article: League of Nations mandate
At the end of the First World War, the Allied powers were confronted with the question of the disposal of the former German colonies in Africa and the Pacific, and the several non-Turkish provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The Peace Conference adopted the principle that these territories should be administered by different governments on behalf of the League – a system of national responsibility subject to international supervision.[80] This plan, defined as the mandate system, was adopted by the "Council of Ten" (the heads of government and foreign ministers of the main Allied powers: Britain, France, the United States, Italy, and Japan) on 30 January 1919 and transmitted to the League of Nations.[81]
League of Nations mandates were established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.[82] The Permanent Mandates Commission supervised League of Nations mandates,[83] and also organised plebiscites in disputed territories so that residents could decide which country they would join. There were three mandate classifications: A, B and C.[84]
The A mandates (applied to parts of the old Ottoman Empire) were "certain communities" that had
...reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.[85]

— Article 22, The Covenant of the League of Nations
The B mandates were applied to the former German colonies that the League took responsibility for after the First World War. These were described as "peoples" that the League said were
...at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.[85]

en.wikipedia.org...


I did find some interesting bits, as shown above, but failed to find the name "Israel" anywhere among it. I know you will be more than helpful in showing me the parts of these truths which I must have missed.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: dashen

Yes, I understand.

We were both referring to the same events. There are statement contained in the Geneva Convention concerning the use and disposition of lands taken and "occupied" during and after military conflicts.
After WW2, the US "occupied" parts of Germany and Japan, but because of the GC we did not establish settlements for Americans in either place. Amoung other things which could be mentioned.

Since the nations gave up their claims on those lands the occupation rule does not apply.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: tinymind

a reply to: dashen



Yes, I understand.



We were both referring to the same events. There are statement contained in the Geneva Convention concerning the use and disposition of lands taken and "occupied" during and after military conflicts.

After WW2, the US "occupied" parts of Germany and Japan, but because of the GC we did not establish settlements for Americans in either place. Amoung other things which could be mentioned.

Since the nations gave up their claims on those lands the occupation rule does not apply.

But alas, it would seem as though the leaders of these countries have llittle to no interest in the welfare of the general populations of the area; then why should I?
However, I notice you have still not shown me the true "established" borders of the state of Israel. You have not because there are none and never have been. There was one an established border for Judea, which is claimed as the homeland of Israel. It was located east of Palestine in the mountains and had no sea coastline where as Palestine did. This is according to the map of "King David's Kingdom" of 460BC. which can be foound with a Google search for maps of the region. If the Jews wanted to return to their homeland, this is where they should be.

a reply to: tinymind

the UN has drawn the lines of Israel as well as most world maps. I havent responded because there is no point in it. have fun arguing with yourself. Ive already told you where to find that information.