Is this why loonies fly planes into tall twin buildings; Post more reasons

Israel, the West Bank, and violation of the Geneva Conventions

Arguably the most reasonable Israeli excuse for not having complied with UN Security Council 242 is that they are allowed custody of the territory until a peace agreement is reached. I know that this ‘logic’ is full of holes; I just wrote “arguably the most reasonable”.

While you occupy territory that is not yours, the Geneva Conventions oblige you under International Law to obey certain rules. So let us check these for a very specific circumstance:
The strategy of destroying the food supply of the civilian population in an area of conflict has been banned under Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1977 Geneva Conventions. The relevant passage says: “It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive”.

But Israel is not a signatory to the 1977 convention. So, does that mean that it is therefore free to violate this convention at will and still remain unsanctioned? Let us test it against a current event:
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/major...ge-ordered-to-uproot-1400-trees-by-may-1.html

Was this a military necessity? No. Was the grove a threat to Israel? LOL. Why was the order given? I tried to find out. Maybe this is just a ‘one-off’ case. Well, no it isn’t. Have a look here [click]:

So this is all done in the name of the settlements. OK, let us see what the Geneva Convention s have to say about settlements outside your own orders [click here for original]:

Doesn’t it make you just so sick??
And the US supports these activities – George Bush Jnr’s “Facts on the Ground”.

No wonder that loonies run out of patience and fly planes into large twin buildings. On the condoning side they ask: "Why do they hate us so much”, they ask. Seems like “they” need to become informed of what is really happening. Obviously it is not just to take revenge for uprooted olive trees. But, as the saying goes "It is the last straw that broke the camel's back".

 

Another well-reasoned and impossible to refute post. It's obvious to any rational individual exactly why Israel acts in the way it does, and any rational individual might also conclude that those who are driven to extremism by frustration born of the apparent inability of the civilized world to do anything more than mumble mealy-mouthed mutterings of expressions of regret regarding Israel, have a point.

 

242 only requires Israeli withdrawal from "territory" not from "the territory" or "all the territory" the words "all" and "the" were specifically left out of the wording of the resolution; furthermore, 242 is not binding on Israel alone and the Arabs have nowhere near met their obligations of the resolution and Israel is under absolutely 0 obligation to act unilaterally.

Oh and your sources are a biased joke and the GC does not apply to the territory of non-state actors.

<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

 

This contemptible wriggling omits the qualifier of the sentence- ' from territories occupied in the recent conflict; ' It renders the use of the definite article unnecessary.

Ain't it a bind, when one's hasbara-fed misinformation comes up against English grammar

 

Right...Let's not forget, these loonies also blow up trains in Madrid, theater goers in Moscow, school kids in Beslan, buses and underground in London, Australian tourists in Bali, they've murdered thousands in India, hundreds of thousands in Darfur... What do these loonies have in common?

 

Well, let's also not forget, loonies flying planes into buildings are all deeply religious people, doing what they do in the Allah's name... So, why not increase chances for more virgins and go out with the bigest bang possible? After all, Allah commands...

 

No it does not, by state only "from territories" and not "the territories" or "all territories" it clearly shows that it is not requiring the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the authors have stated as much because they wanted to leave the final border agreement for further negotiations.

A key part of the case in favour of a "some territories" reading is the claim that British and American officials involved in the drafting of the Resolution omitted the definite article deliberately in order to make it less demanding on the Israelis. As George Brown, British Foreign Secretary in 1967, said:

The Israelis had by now anexed de facto, if not formally, large new areas of Arab land, and there were now very many more Arab refugees. It was clear that what Israel or at least many of her leaders, really wanted was permanently to colonize much of this newly annexed Arab territory, particularly the Jordan valley, Jerusalem, and other sensitive areas. This led me into a flurry of activity at the United Nations, which resulted in the near miracle of getting the famous resolution - Resolution 242 - unanimously adopted by the Security Council. It declares "the inadmissibility of territory by war" and it also affirms the necessity "for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area". It calls for "withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied during the recent conflict." It does not call for Israeli withdrawal from &#8220;the&#8221; territories recently occupied, nor does it use the word &#8220;all&#8221;. It would have been impossible to get the resolution through if either of these words had been included, but it does set out the lines on which negotiations for a settlement must take place. Each side must be prepared to give up something: the resolution doesn&#8217;t attempt to say precisely what, because that is what negotiations for a peace-treaty must be about.[52]



Lord Caradon, chief author of the resolution, takes a subtly different slant. His focus seems to be that the lack of a definite article is intended to deny permanence to the "unsatisfactory" pre-1967 border, rather than to allow Israel to retain land taken by force. Such a view would appear to allow for the possibility that the borders could be varied through negotiation:

Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line I was not prepared to use wording in the Resolution which would have made that line permanent. Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent "secure and recognized" boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle.[24] The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1948, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...[53]

Arthur J. Goldberg, another of the resolution's drafters, concurred that Resolution 242 does not dictate the extent of the withdrawal, and added that this matter should be negotiated between the parties:

Does Resolution 242 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council require the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all of the territories occupied by Israel during the 1967 war? The answer is no. In the resolution, the words the and all are omitted. Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict, without specifying the extent of the withdrawal. The resolution, therefore, neither commands nor prohibits total withdrawal. If the resolution is ambiguous, and purposely so, on this crucial issue, how is the withdrawal issue to be settled? By direct negotiations between the concerned parties. Resolution 242 calls for agreement between them to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement. Agreement and acceptance necessarily require negotiations.[54]

 

Religion has little to do with it next to politics. That's the funny thing. An argument, from the viewpoint of Islam could easily be made against the acts of terrorism. Religion is used as political leverage, the reasons behind the attacks are things like the ones stated in the OP. The list goes on... putting a case together as to why you should hate America for an impressionable young man in Pakistan would be easy, in a political sense, before even pointing to any jihadist verses... religion is just leverage, it's slightly easier to then sell the suicide dream with promises of virgins for "martyrs". As Billy Connolly said "How are you gonna shag them all when you're now flying mince?" But resentment and contempt towards the West would absolutely exist without Islam.

 

Religion. In these cases Abrahamic, but other loonies dosimilar crap in the name of other religions too.

 

I disagree, religion has everything to do with suicide culture. After all, there's not a chance in a million that an 18 year old would go and blow himself up, unless he was religiously indoctrinated. Yea I know, kamikazes comes to mind, but as far as I remember, kamikazes had not attacked a single civilian target... did they? Besides, kamikazes were ordered into a battle with a one-way ticket; anyone orders young muslim suicide bombers to do what they do, or are they volunteering in the Allah's name? You tell me...

 

I want to say , Thank you , Dutch , for such a balanced and considered perspective . I appreciate your sophisticated and rational approach to very complex and sensitive problems .

I can see you spent your Home Time in a positive and constructive way .
Hopefully we will see many more of your delicate contributions to solving World problems . If you have a Diplomatic Corps over there in Hilly Billy Land , you might wish to consider it as a career ambition .

 

Oh I beg to differ. There is some water in that, but, without the political problems there would be no way for extremists to spread this idea. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda use scare tactics when recruiting, indoctrination is indoctrination. A Kafir could most definitely be an extremist willing to blow himself up and not believe for one second that he was going to heaven. What you could term the Kafka factor. Some people buy the theology, some are frightened into it, some go along with it rather than become a victim. Just like Nazism, or any other fascism you care to mention. The ideology can be sold with or without religion, and the adherents will be willing to die. Once you're willing to die for whatever course, there's only a thin difference between rushing out on the front line and comitting suicide.

In short, secular fascism and religious fascism can influence a man in much the same way.

 

Let us test the logic of your reasoning, Doctor. This is important, since your view is offeresd by literally hundreds of Zionist sites and has attained Mega-Myth status. Ready for the test?

Test 1) – UN Security Council resolution 242 also has the following sentence:

I point you, Doctor, to the fact that ‘242’ does not state “the international waterways”. Do you see that? So, according to your logic, in order to be fully compliant with ‘242’, Egypt need not have guaranteed freedom of navigation through ALL the international waterways, but could select WHICH to apply this guarantee to. The rest can be closed to Israeli shipping until a full peace agreement is reached amongst all parties.

I am sure that your attitude is that my corollary is "Plain bull crap; UNSC 242 does not mean that". And of course I agree, it doesn’t. Therefore, neither does your example of the missing “the”. Let’s move on to two tests by legal expert John McHugo [this paper is now difficult to find on the internet. Those wanting a copy please send me a PM with an email address]

Test 2) – The famous McHugo ‘Dogs’ Test:

This applies even though the definite article “the” has not been used before 'dogs'. According to the Doctor, only SOME dogs, but not all, must be kept on a leash, and this need be done only around SOME ponds, but not all. That is clearly contrary to common English meaning. Therefore so is the missing “the” regarding ‘territories’ in 242.

Test 3) – The McHugo ‘Boundary’ Test:

The drafters of UN SC 242 tried to be too clever, and in doing so they left uncertainties which have been used (incorrectly, in my opinion) to avoid Israeli compliance with the resolution. The essence of 242 is nonetheless utterly clear, and any spin tried to negate this is clearly only argumentative:

Israel has clearly in non-compliance with both of these decisions. Firstly, she has not withdrawn from territories acquired during the 1967 war, and secondly as per Bibi’s wonderful admission on video, she has scuppered peace achievement.

 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/clashes-jerusalem-over-occupied-palestinian-homes-163335397.html

Is it because all citizen classes in Israel are equal, especially one?

 

Reading Bin Ladens Fatwas it seems clear that 9/11 was all about Iraq.