IDF soldiers detain five-year-old Palestinian for stone-throwing in Hebron

Didn't say they wre going to attack Creation, the broke the ceasefire by massing troops in the Sinai on Israels border which is an act of war.

Again;

""According to Michael Oren, Nasser disregarded the counsel of his own intelligence[67] and began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[68][69] According to Moshe Shemesh, as Egypt and Syria shared a mutual defence pact, Nasser responded to the Israeli threats by beginning to concentrate his troops in the Sinai Peninsula according to the "Qahir" (Conqueror) defence plan. He also decided to prepare the feda'iyyun for carrying out the "Fahd 2 (Leopard) Plan" [murderous attacks] inside Israel and to coordinate military operations with Syria.[70] ""

To tell the truth nothing however, to keep a nation such as Israel that is dependent on reserves who all have jobs that contribute to the economy at alert tatus would within a month shut the Israeli economy down so, either the Arabs had to get off the doorstep or they would be forced off as Israel could not out wait the massing of the armies.

Exactly what I have told you and shown you verified by people on both sides who were actually there.

No. Once again, please read what I write prior to replying. I said " conquering a nation or part of then moving undesirables into gulag within it. "

I got "


Errore http 404: File non trovato

Siamo spiacenti di comunicarle che la pagina da lei scelta non è disponibile!

La invitiamo a ricercare il documento a partire dalla Home Page: www.lex.unict.it"

Nope. Why don't you just quote it?

Spent two years over there in 78/9 and 90/91. I've talked to Syrians, Palestinians, Israelis, Egyptians as well as Jordanians, all military as that is what I was doing over there. Was told of all the wars from 1948 to the October War and to tell the truth, liked talking to the Syrians the most but, if you feel I'm wasting your time then please stop posting the huge fibs you do and attempting to call it fact.

 

What ceasefire agreement? What act of war - massing troops in defence?
Did this agreement include allowances for mass theft of locomotives and destruction of roads and telephone lines as the Israelis were leaving?

And what else does Michael Oren do?

How can you countenance forcing arabs off the doorstep of their own land in defence of their own land? Especially when you admit they presented no threat of invasion?

Hmmm and I have numerous quotations in evidence as well as schloarships by credible authors who say different. Which is better than your protestations of relevant experience.

Ok try this for size;
http://www.lex.unict.it/STIPIL2008/documenti/David Kretzmer_The Advisory Opinion.pdf

That should do the trick.

Might as well have a look at ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Israeli_settlements#Article_49

too....

No no, its just that you keep telling us youve talked to people decades ago in the relevant area. It may well be so but as its unprovable its meaningless. Moreover anecdotal conversations with people does not equate to scholarly research, if it did people whom you seem to admire like Mr Oren wouldnt spend years trying to give people his narration of events.

As for fibs, if youve got anything of mine that you would like to question please highlight it that we may discuss it.

 

UN GA 997

"Urges the parties to the armistice agreements promptly to withdraw all forces behind the armistice lines, to desist from raids across the armistice lines into neighbouring territory, and to observe scrupulously the provisions of the armistice agreements;"

Not sure. Look it up please. I do know that it didn't allow for seven divisions to be sent into areas where the UN Troops were expelled from in order to confront some phantom enemy.

Already addressed in post #194. Please read my replies prior to wasting bandwidth and asking the same question and getting the same answer.

They broke a ceasefire to get there. Golly, what part about ceasefires don't you get?

No existential threat as long as Israel remained on high alert. That is not the way ceasefires are supposed to be Creation.

Yes I have seen many of them and destroyed them all one by one.

Very nice. What am I supposed to be looking at exactly? The lasr one says;

""Article 49 (1) states

"Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."[86]

Article 49 (6) states

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."[86]""

Ok. So since Israel is not forcing it's people to move what is wrong?

You are correct.

Nope. Answering your questions I hope has straightened you out pretty good I believe as I don't think you have much information to offer to begin with so will wait and see..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRhFbK-R32Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player More attacks on children.

 

Interesting, you provide UN Res 997, with its recommendations, but not an actual agreement. Why would you do that??

Even the bit you quote, in bold above refers to actions Egypt had not carried out. In fact UN 997 only mentions that indeed Israel had broken the last agreement.

How do you know that? Whats phantom about Israeli power and aggression given their previous incursion?

No you didnt, you said he's a respected author, but that's not all he is, why havent you told us all of it yet?

Please do explain about this ceasefire agreement, UN 997 isnt it. Perhaps you mean the previous agreement which ended with Israel invading Egypt in 56?

No existential threat whatsoever, they just didnt have the weapons.

Not really.

Why havent you read the first one?

Interesting, so you inform me that Im a liar then refuse to detail any lies. Is that moral behaviour and have I called your bluff?

 

To show that the armistice of 1949 was still in effect.

It states that "the parties to the armistice agreements promptly to withdraw all forces behind the armistice lines, to desist from raids across the armistice lines into neighbouring territory, and to observe scrupulously the provisions of the armistice agreements;"

Because para two of the armistice states "2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term “planned” in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practiced in military organizations."

Moving seven divisions into the Sinai after expelling UN troops is somewhat threatening as is closing off shipping to Israel which is also in dis abeyance of the ceasefire agreement.

Dunno. Porn star? Owner of a Micky D Franchise what?

Both together.

997 "1. Urges as a matter of priority that all parties now involved in hostilities in the area agree to an immediate cease-fire and, as part thereof, halt the movement of military forces and arms into the area;"

1264 "2. No aggressive action by the armed forces - land, sea, or air - of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other; it being understood that the use of the term “planned” in this context has no bearing on normal staff planning as generally practiced in military organizations."

Then perhaps they might adhere to the ceasefire agreements then rather than break it by making hostile troop movements and closing shipping routes. In any case, while possibly not being an existential threat they were a threat nonetheless that could not be leftt without like response in troop counter strength, a counter that Israel could not keep up for an extended period.

Well, let's have them then if you wish them destroyed yet again.

"He cited authorities who conceded that an occupying power does indeed have the power to requisition lands for the needs of the army of occupation."

 

So there isnt one. Though there is the 49 armistice agreement, which was already broken in 56, some thirteen years prior.

Threatening Egypt with military action after already having invaded is somewhat threatening. As for closing off shipping, no Israeli ship was ever stopped and Egypt had already signalled its willingness to participate in international mediation re the straits. So that argument is nonsense too.

Close. Israeli ambassador to the US.

But still an independent and authorative voice in your book right???

Lemme guess, youll take the late Osama Bin Laden's memoirs as an authoritative account of radical Islam too eh?

Exactly, its a resolution, not an agreement.

Unless youre now contending that the numerous UN resolution against Israeli action re occupied territory are actually agreements between Israel and another party are you?

Lemme guess, thats different.

Right, so you concede there was no threat.

Now you fall back on the nonsense about ceasefire agreements that are in fact UN Resolutions quoting already broken armistice agreements going back nearly 20 years prior.

You fail to note that no Israeli ship was ever stopped and the matter was one of international arbitration rather than casus belli.

Then you fail to note that if Israel didnt want to station lots of troops on its borders perhaps it shouldnt be making threats, planning the execution of the 'greater israel' idea and instead merely asking the UN force to redeploy on its side of the border as it could have had done years before. Didnt think of that did you?

To destroy an argument you need to work from logical and agreed principles while using thoroughly independent corroboration.

Telling us that you talked to some guys in the middle east years ago doesnt cut it. And you know it, so stop the bluffing and get real.

Indeed occupation armies need places to store their tanks, not to bring up families and create neighborhoods. That argument is already done for.

Moreover by this you already concede that article 6 doesnt let you get away with saying only forcible transfers count.

Nevermind that youve not once even tried to pretend there is a moral principle behind the settlements.

Sure.....

Now shall we commence with you outlining these huge fibs ive been telling ?

 

Stones kill, have killed, and Molotov cocktails have burned families... you on the other side advocate from your armchair and also dispense your own brand of anti-Semitism... Innuendoes an the like.

 

So if I point out that a Jew is behaving like a Nazi, that is anti-Semitism? I would have thought the behavior of the Jew in question would be self-inflicted anti-Semitism. Was the lesson of the Holocaust for the Jews to become what they hated?

 

You carry on with your deceptive ad hominem figuring that perhaps you are on the verge of outsmarting the readers... BTW they recently discovered the bust of Cleopatra and we know now how she really looks, the mask you dropped has not revealed your identity... I stand by my word, you are a Muslim, Pakistani preferably for they speak fluent English but yet they are Muslim Zealots and the proof of the pudding is the slaughter of Daniel Pearl.

 

a) You can do whatever your heart desires, the US and Israel are two true Democracies, and I am free to state any criticism I find necessary when it pertains to 'defamation of Israel'.

b) A Deist : : a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe ... ha, ha, ha...

I am not a religious person myself, but I still consider myself a <Nationalist Jew,> and I will be darned if I would not take on/expose writers of your brand denigrating, demeaning and putting Jews on the defensive.

 

Muslim eh? Something wrong with that is there?

 

And reapplied in 56 as detailed below..

And moving your divisions into the Sinai after expelling the UN Force who were supposed to separate them and the Israel&#8217;s is somewhat threatening as well as is blockading Israeli ports.

I would say so as his historical views on this matter are shared by most scholars as well as Al Jazeera. (Italics mine)

Both agreed to the terms and, a ceasefire was made.

The ceasefire was established at midnight GMT on 7/8 November and, except for isolated incidents, generally held.[/url]

I agreed with your contention that there was no &#8216;existential threat&#8217; but don't know where you got this idea that a quarter million Arabs poised to attack are not a threat to even the most powerful military and can certainly say that it was not from me.

Resolutions that detail; the terms of the ceasefire Israel and Egypt agreed to and, I didn&#8217;t know that ceasefire agreements had time limits. If so please outline this law or policy.

Wasn&#8217;t much of a chance to sail one through the Straits as the closure came shortly prior to hostilities commencing and besides, who would deliberately sail a cargo ship into a war zone? As well, I&#8217;m sure that if Egypt had nothing but good intentions in mind they would not have demanded the Peace Keepers leave and then placed seven divisions in the Sinai against the ceasefire precepts they agreed to.

Like Nasser did in closing shipping to and from Israel and moving seven divisions into the Sinai in direct violation of the ceasefire terms he agreed to?

Why would that solve anything as it wasn&#8217;t Israel who moved a hundred thousand soldiers into the Sinai, it was Egypt that did that.

Where should a full or part time soldier have his family when he is serving for years and then months out of each year after? As far away from his place of duty or as close to it as possible? In the US and most western nations they have bases where the soldiers have their families near them, are you going to cite some law stating that families are not allowed to be together.

Nope.

I did in post #188.

Sure.

Using a dead end quote to help support your point and then ridiculing me for asking for clarification;

Claiming a biased opinion is fact;

And an outright falsehood to top it off;

 

Again, thats resolution, not an agreement.

The UN force was there to protect the egyptians, the israelis had already refused the UN force on their own territory. And of course the only credible threats around were the Israeli threats, as they had already violated the 49 armistice.

Moreover moving ones own troops into ones own territory is perfectly acceptable, and no Israeli port was ever blockaded.

Um, no. Israeli ambassadors whos only job is by definition to represent one side do not make for good independent scholarship. And Al Jezeera is not an an actual acholarly source either, as well you know..

Indeed, yet it had no terms which were then broken in 1967 by Egypt. Moreover, if Israel had felt threatened before during or after 56 it could have agreed to having UNEF on its territory. And of course, Israel had already denounced the 49 armistice agreement as your evidence shows - clearly in every respect Israel is the threat and Israel is the invader.

They werent poised to attack they were poised to mount a counter attack.

Um no. They agreed to ceasefire that was about it. But really if the situation was Egypts fault and not Israels then why did the israelis lie about who fired the first shot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contro...y_War#Preemptive_strike_v._unjustified_attack

What closure? What ship was ever stopped? Why didnt Israel agree to mediation?

Why wouldnt they demand the peacekeepers leave? It proved to its own public that Egypt could defend itself. The UNEF was only there to protect them from the Israelis, the israelis had rejected that protection. Moreover all sides knew the relative strengths, and yet it was israel that attacked and then lied about it.

He had to defend his lands, Israelis were making credible threats again, and attacking all the neighbours. And he agreed to mediation, Israelis did not.

It would protect Israel. Isnt that the most important thing?

They should be where he comes from, just like US soldiers dont have families in Afghanistan. But indeed sometimes a small number of families stay in for example Germany when the soldiers are posted there, but theyre not claiming the land as American or British, and when the soldiers are posted elsewhere the families leave - they dont stay there, bring the grandparents and declare it their land.

Yep.

Thats a deception, having families around for a time doesnt equate the actual practice of settlement building.

Its not a fib, and you know it. Further I have provided the evidence you refer to.

Can we now agree that after numerous opportunities you really are unable to provide example of any prior huge fibs you accuse me of telling?

Come on now, youve lost that point.

Thats not the huge fib you originally referred to and moreover its a refutation of your evidence, not a fib.

Nonsense. Al jezeera is not an authorative source. And the author has the clearest possible conflict of interest.

Um no you did that....look;

Thats not a biased opinion, its Israeli opinion;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements

Have you a problem with the above?

Indeed why is it false to state that you wish to paint Israeli occupation and settlement in a good light when you spent your time telling us how the need of some soldiers to have their families close is akin to US and UK soldier's temprary postings in germany and nothing to do with a much wider policy of building widely settled Israeli neighbourhoods in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

Clearly your original statement about my huge fibs was such rubbish you had to then bring up words that were said after that point in our correspondence - cleary reprehensible conduct.

 

Do you mean you feel they should be supplied with Kalashnikov AK-47s instead?

 

Very interesting change from the usual Zionist justification for the wars in 1966/1967.
So what you are claiming is that Israel needed to hurry up its first-strike attacks because it could not afford to wait economically.
Now that does not sound exactly like the "defensive war" which the Zionists usually claim. Your reason is an economic logistical one rather than the presence of an existential threat.

I congratulate you on this refreshing view. It is one of the reasons that Tom Segev (his book "1967") and Shlomo Ben-Ami (his book "Scars of War; Wounds of Peace") gave for Israel's decision to strike first.

I am impressed that you do not advocate the usual Zionist "existentail threat" myth.

Well done.

 

Geneva 4, Article 49, final paragraph; "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies". Couldn't be clearer than that, and there's no mention of 'force'.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/380-600056
Condoning and encouraging the building of settlements by the Israeli government, and the consequent transference-voluntary or otherwise-of Israelis into the Occupied Territories is a clear breach of international law and the Geneva Conventions, as above.

 

You have a <FIXATION> it is not occupied territory, it is <disputed> territory so you build the above nonsense on hate of Jews/sraelis nothing else, and Geneva IV does not apply here.

 

The ceasefire was based on that resolution and that resolution is the terms of that ceasefire.

Please provide something credible from the UN to state the purpose of UNEF was to protect Egyptians rather than separate the forces and to assist with the ceasefire which was accepted by both sides according to the terms laid out in in UN Resolution 997.

Hardly as Egypt was prohibited from doing so according to the ceasefire agreement they agreed to;

Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser then ousted United Nations buffer troops from the Gaza Strip and moved his forces up to the 1949 armistice line with Israel.

Strange, this accredited historian whom you have no actual evidence to show he has been guilty of being left wing and ‘adjusting’ or ‘revising’ history has the support of various sources from the spectrum with no dissenting evidence of any kind except your words. Al Jazeera presents the Arab/Muslim viewpoint of that historical event and here is yet another;

Strange. According to the UN itself the terms of the ceasefire they parties agreed to were the UN Resolution 997 itself unless you are going to say they were lying in which case some rare proof would be in order.

Refer to the first quote of this post if confused.

No need as UNEF’s purpose which was to separate the beligerents was already fulfilled by being stationed in the Sinai. Egypt benifitted from this financially whereas Israel did not and, Israel did not have the thousands of square miles of empty land to provide as Egypt did.

So Israel said this?

Finally you come down to earth a bit from your original position that;

So then, you agree finally with Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to the UN that Nasser did move seven divisions into the Sinai against the ceasefire conditions he agreed to. Golly, why do you keep stating they didn’t when you know they did?

So, since you agree with the former Israeli Ambassador does that mean that everything you post from now on is biased?

Have no idea. Did you ask anybody who gives a hoot?

The one that Nasser wanted mediation over.

They were busy with the seven divisions in the Sinai.

Please provide something from the UNEF mission statement or assignation of the UN to UNEF to support this mission goal for it as I read (and quoted as well as linked earler to same) that their mssion was to separate the beligerents, not protect one particular side.

As a former member of UNEF II I can also assure you that we were under strict orders not to ever conduct ourselves in person, on the radio, in phone calls, in memos, writing, gestures or any means conceivable that we preferred one side or the other or, to provide aid to one side that could be construed in any way shape or form as ‘protection’ or ‘enabling.’

So please, provide this official policy or statement where Egypt was specifically being ‘protected’ from Israel by UNEF rather than impartially enforcing a separation between the two parties.

Please provide the timeline of his moving the divisions in to the Sinai and blockading the Straits and Israel attacking Syria please. Oh, and the fictitious attack on Jordan too.

Oh yes, mediation over something that never happened n your book. I didn’t know that breaking a ceasefire was up for discussion as I always thought that a ceasefire was to be adhered to rather than mediated when one breaks it. Please show this rule in the UN Handbook of ceasefires.

In any case, how can anybody mediate with comments such as this?

"We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel. ...

Discussed above.

They are not there every year and Afghanistan is not occupied territory so a poor analogy.

Either is Israel.

And if the families wish to stay are they then held at gun point by the German police until they do get gramma back to the US?

Uh uh.

You’re right, soldiers families should live in tar paper shacks. Way to support the troops!

You dropped a lame link in the thread and then when politely asked to rectify it you ridiculed me and told me to look it up myself rather than provide it in the form of a link or quote. Then, when politely pressured you posted two links with no quotes with both of them being lengthy articles with no direction as to what or how this related to the point you were trying to make. When I quoted from one of them, rather than deal with it you directed me to the other and still have yet to deal with my reply to that link.

To me, not being forthcoming with the evidence of your contention and making fun of the person who is genuinely asking you for it while implying it has support value for your argument and not even countering the reply to your link is fibbing, immensely time consuming while expecting others to do your work for you and, makes one wonder if you even had any idea as to what it said to begin with yourself.

Well, you wished to address them so now that we have them on the table, once you deal with your fibs and either come clean or prove they are not then we can move on.

Nice try but by screaming ‘bias!’ with no proof that it is such or, that the author has been frequently guilty of this in any of his writings and then expecting this fib to stick is …. well …. A fib.

Al Jazeera is now touted by yourself as being pro Israel???

Seems that heavily preparing for a counter attack even to the point of expelling the very UN personnel who were, as you say, ‘protecting the Egyptians’ in order to prepare for a conquering counter attack is anything but defensive and, all sources I have come across state the same thing but you of course continue with your unsubstantiated fib even though you have no proof of it.

And Arab as evidenced by Al Jazeera as well as the Sun Sentinel, Joseph Puder, Gamell Nasser himself through his own quotes as well as the orders issued by his defense staff detailed above.

A huge fib on your part to expect that all the above are biased against themselves and screw history and current events to help out Israel in history books but, please provide the factual support for this fib so we can have some facts other than what I have brought to to this discussion.

What have you to show it was a purely defensive move when you have admitted yourself that it was designed to b a counter attack?

Yes. The bulk of the sources used in this Wiki article are Israeli. Please show something that is not biased as we all are aware of how you have come to state that Israeli sources are ‘biased.’

More fibs. I never said it was a good thing or a bad thing so please stop fibbing over this matter (and all other matters) and just address the actual point which was that Israel requires the settlements for her defense and address that rather than make garbage up.

Clearly you have a long way to go to deal with your difficulties and fibbing to yourself in denial is not a good first step.

 

It was a defensive war as the pressure placed by the Arabs required that Israel stand to but they were limited as to how long they could. It certainly was not an existential threat so long as the IDF were at full alert however, to stand down and return to normal life when a quarter million Arabs were on their doorstep it would be.

 

So if it is that 'clear' then you should be able to show how people are being forced or transferred against their will to those territories by the government.

Unless of course they are just going there on their own in which case it is clearly not in violation of Art 49.

 

There is no mention of force in the paragraph I linked to, so why do you keep bringing it up? Whether the settlers are being coerced or not is irrelevant; the salient fact is that they are Israelis and a part of the population of the occupying force (Israel), and thus their settlement building activity on land which is not Israeli land, is illegal.
What makes this so hard to understand, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

Thank you Drew you are the one who brought this fellow back to temporary sanity.
Since he likes Ben Ami, he should also read <Years of wrath Days of Glory> by Yitshaq Ben Ami a friend that I knew and left us early.

 

If I wish to move in with my girlfriend on the other end of the nation is the government 'transferring' or 'deporting' me? If the Alaskan oilfields require skilled workers and I have that skill and there are government incentives to move and work there, if I chose to do so is the government 'transferring' or 'deporting' me or am I moving there voluntarily?

The answer is an obvious no so, in order for the government to get people to do anything they do not wish to do, as in transferring or deporting, there is a threat, real or implied, of violence or force. In this case, the people are moving on their own with no forceable transfer by the government required.

So to be clear, even if the government is offering enticements, they are not still transferring anybody as the people are moving themselves.

Unless of course you can show that there is forced movement of people occurring then you would have a clear case but, as far as I know, nobody is being moved at gunpoint or by the police. That only historically happens when the Arabs make peace and the settlements are closed down.

 

Dumb response; if Israel and Palestine were contiguous and one state you might have a point. The settlements are illegal; the law says so (the laws Israel is bound to abide by through membership of the UN), the UN says they are illegal and finally, so does America, your 'ally'. Basically Israel is legally screwed, and no amount of daft spin can change the facts. Palestinian territory is emphatically not Israeli land to arbitrarily annex and build upon.