Goomba; et al, I think this needs refined. (COMMENT) First let's look at a very basic premise: I don't consider Arab acts of conventional warfare as terrorism. I do consider acts of violence against civilian targets (indiscriminate rocket fire, hijacking, piracy, ambushes of tourist and school buses, bombing restaurants and public facilities, airport attacks, suicide bombings, etc) as acts of terrorism. The objection comes in when Arab Governments endorse struggle, "by whatever means," including armed struggle, against foreign occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, when the occupation is a result of Arab Aggression and terrorist action. It is against international law to: organize, instigate, facilitate, --- participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating asymmetric and insurgent activities intended to be committed against other States (such as Israel) or their citizens. It is because the Hostile Arab Palestinian has, over an extended period, establish a history of such activities that an occupation and quarantine is required. The Arab aggression, through a series of conflicts and sneak attacks, and preparatory threats actions came first; before occupation. Second, the Hostile Arab Palestinian was never denied either the right of self-determination or the opportunity to commit to peace. In fact, during occupation, the Hostile Arab Palestinian was able to Declare Independence for the State of Palestine. I do not agree that the Hostile Arab Palestinian has the right to pursue, by any means they see as necessary, asymmetric activities and insurgency against the State of Israel. It is incumbent upon the State of Palestine, in declaring that it is a peace-loving State committed to the principles of peaceful coexistence, with all adjacent states, including Israel. In the case of the occupied territories, the occupation, special security measures, and quarantine efforts might be considered for termination one year after the general close of military operations, and the renouncement of Jihad and armed struggle by Fedayeen. (COMMENT) I see this with much more than the emotional eye of the pro-Palestinian laymen. I see this as "NOT" land theft, but as misappropriation [illegal use of the property of Palestinians for use by Israelis or other unauthorized purpose, particularly by a public official, a trustee of a trust (the Occupation Force), except where such use or destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations (Article 53, GCIV)]; remembering that Palestine is sovereign. I think it is fair to say, that unless the State of Palestine renounces its independence, that Israel must, on or about one-year after termination of the occupation, based on the demonstration of peaceful intentions of the Palestinians, return all lands and make restitution or reparation, for the period of holding, as agreed through a permanent instrument of peace. That would be one year from which armed force by Hostile Arab Palestinians against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the State of Israel (A/RES/3314(XXIX) Definition of Aggression 14 December 1974) cease. (COMMENT) The establishment of the State of Israel was undertaken [A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949] recalling General Assembly Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 and Resolution 194 (III) 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the State of Israel before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions. The Resolutions did not require BOTH the acceptance of the Arab and Israel; but when the independence of EITHER the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (See Part I, Section F - Admission to Membership, A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947) While the Hostile Arab Palestinian had the right of self-determination to reject the offer, it did not have override authority over the Jewish right to self-determination (a veto). The Hostile Arab Palestinian rejection had no effect on the rights of the Jewish Agency to accept, participate in the implementation process, and execute the recommended steps to independence. (COMMENT) Again, NOT "steal." While it may be, in some cases, an "Illegal appropriation and use," it cannot be a permanent arrangement. Once the Palestinians meet the requirement to demonstrate that it is a peace-loving State committed to the principles of peaceful coexistence, for the achievement of a lasting peace based on justice and respect for rights, including the recognition of the State of Israel and the cessation of hostiles, demonstrated over the Article 6 GCIV period, THEN, Israel must begin its withdraw and --- with the assistance and oversight of the UN Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, must begin. But this restitution, repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation can not begin without a demonstrated act and agreed upon treaty protocol. (COMMENT) Previously published threats, solemn declarations and government statements. Most Respectfully, R
HBendor, et al, You will note that I sometime preface a point by stating that the issue is a "prima facie" case. The meaning (first blush, or at first sight) is my cowardly way of skirting the fence. But as I'm now faced with a direct interrogative, I had better face the music. First, let me say, that I tend to look at these issues as an investigator, and not as an attorney like Ambassador Baker, a former Foreign Service Officer. Second, there is a difference between the political interpretation of a situation, a legal interpretation of a situation, and a criminal investigation perspective. Here, the difference is between a Political Interpretation (alla SECSTATE) and that of a Legal Interpretation (alla the AMBO). Now you are going to get my more pragmatic view as an Investigator. (REFERENCES) Part II, Article 8 - War Crimes, Paragraph 2b, Rome Statues, International Criminal Court (viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory; Article 49, Clause 6, Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Article V - Transitional Period and Permanent Status of Negotiation, Paragraph 3, Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (a.k.a. "Oslo Accord") 3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbours, and other issues of common interest. Section B - Specific Understandings and Agreements, Article IV, Paragraph 1, Agreed Minutes to the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements 1. Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis. Impact on right of Palestinian people to self-determination (paras. 115-122)(Page 10); Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, International Court of Justice. The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law. (OBSERVATION) Why do I say that it stands as a prima facie violation? For two reasons: First, simply because the ICJ says so; and in at least one vote on the court, it alone made the construction of the "security wall/barrier" built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), contrary to international law. Second, that a cursory reading of the Geneva Convention IV (GCIV), and the Rome Statues, make a case at first glance, without further investigation. (COMMENT) The Ambassador makes seven (5) points (why Israel's settlements are not illegitimate) that I will attempt to address. The "issue of settlements" is permanent status negotiations. This is a strong point. The issue is, in fact, covered by the Oslo Accord; and under permanent negotiation until final settlement. Having said that, most people haven't a clue. And it clearly was not mentioned in the Advisory Opinion by the ICJ as a point of consideration. Prohibition on transferring population into occupied territory (Art. 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention) was, according to the International Committee Red Cross's own official commentary of that convention, drafted in 1949 to prevent the forced, mass transfer of populations not occupied from a prior, legitimate sovereign power. This is mentioned several times in the ICJ Advisory Opinion, and carried considerable weight. There are two retorts to the AMBO's position. The restriction is general in nature and does not apply to a specific government or regime; but all governments and regimes. The restriction is open in terms of sovereignty; it does not require specific sovereignty. It applies to all manner of "territories." The territories cannot be defined as "Palestinian territories" or, as you yourself frequently state, as "Palestine". No such entity exists, Not entirely true. Certainly in 1967, there was no State of Palestine; but after 1988, the PLO declared independence. However, this again is a mute point. The issue of statehood and sovereignty is not a prerequisite for the application of the GCIV or the ICC Statues. permanent status negotiation is to determine, by agreement, the status of the territory, The implication here is that the Oslo Accord, not a treaty in itself, can nullify territorial protection. There is no requirement in any of the signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians that Israel cease, or freeze settlement activity. This is a strong point. The Accords merely postpone the issue, it doesn't favor one side or the other on the issue. Thus, the protections remain unless specifically granted. There is a cause of action, with a legitimate claim, if the successor regime for the Palestinian Representatives to Oslo Accords have a dispute. The ICJ findings may be flawed because there are considerations that were not taken into consideration. There is an argument to be made that security considerations warrant occupation. There is an argument to be made that the settlements were a legitimate tool of state craft in pushing peace talks in the least non-violent way. Remember the 1993 Oslo Accords are of 1993 vintage; as opposed to the ICJ opinion of 2004. One of the assumptions is that the Court considered all relevant binding agreements in making their decisions. Most Respectfully, R
an occupying power is only allowed to confiscate occupied lands, especially private property, for military/security purposes ONLY. the occupying power is NOT allowed to confiscate occupied land for the purpose of building civilian housing & infrastructure.
I do not see how the settlements can be "okay" because morally they aren't as bad as palestinian attacks on Israelis. This conflict has been going on for decades, and since 67, Israel has militarily occupied the west bank, gaza, east jerusalem and the golan. We all know the arabs did not want the state of Israel established. More than one war was fought over it, but it is also true that Egypt and Jordan signed peace agreements and ever since then have upheld their end, just as Israel upheld theirs. Like every other ethnic population, there are a wide variety of opinions and political beliefs and some extremely entrenched partisan factions. The palestinians are no different in this regard than the Israelis. From the palestinian/arab/muslim perspective the vast majority see what we call terrorist attacks as armed resistence to military occupation. Is 50 years of military occupation more moral than 50 years of armed resistence? The casualty figures would indicate otherwise. The settlements are an important element of the neo-zionist strategy of ultimately annexing all of the west bank and east jerusalem. In relative terms gaza has little value to the neo-zionist. It is not about "waging" peace or defending against terrorism with the neo-zionist faction. Its about attaining ownership of what they consider their rightful land - rightful because of their religion and historical connection. In so many ways its the same as the muslim concept of the "ummah". Once ours, always ours. I for one believe that the settlements must be greatly reduced, and those remaining are compensated for with land swaps and absolute Israeli guarantee of permanent physical access between the palestinian provinces of Gaza and the WB. At some point the proponderance of palestinians and Israelis will demand common sense prevail with co-operation, compromise and sacrifice on both sides to achieve a just and permanent peace. By the same token, it also has to start with building trust. With so much blood and misery over the decades, that will be the hardest thing to accomplish.
They don't have any other methods. 'Terrorism' is thus the only effective policy of violent resistance. No, it's a result of Israel not playing by the rules. There's no point in the Arabs going by the book when the Zionists had no intention of doing so. If they did, Israel would have probably taken all Palestine. We all know about the policy of ethnic cleansing that was adopted by the Zionists before Israel's decleration of independence; so tell us, how exactly is such a policy not against international law? Like I said, the hostile nation of Israel had no intention of following the rules. What a joke. Well I agree that in the face of an intransigent and hostile state (Israel), the Palestians have the right to engage in "asymmetric activities and insurgency against the State of Israel." It is incumbent upon the ocuppying state of Israel to declare that it is commitied to stopping all land theft and intends to relinquish the relevant territories to their rightful owners. It's not simply an "illegal use of the property of Palestinians." They're building Jewish-only complexes for tens of thousands of Israelis on Palestinian land. In my book, that's theft! Arab self-determination and a settlement that is acceptable to them goes hand in hand. They are the indigenous inhabitants of the land, so any settlement that goes against their wishes can be seen as compromising their self-determination. It most certainly is theft, regardless of the euphemisms used to describe the policy. Contrary to naive individuals, Israel is not interested in ending the occupation and returning the lands they have stolen and built on. The platitude that the "Palestinians meet the requirement to demonstrate that it is a peace-loving State..." is just your typical pro-Israel bullcrap that isn't taken seriously anymore (not even by the US). Oh, so now it's the previous published threats. Have you read the current charter of the Likud by the way?
Jonsa, et al, Common sense is a very rare application in the Middle East. It is only invoked as a matter of last resort. (COMMENT) If common sense was a critical element in the development of a solution, there would have been a much different timeline and history leading up to the situation we have today. These matter are agenda driven and emotionally charged. The clinginess shown by the Arab today, and their demand for justice under international law, (most of which wasn't written in 1948 but now being retroactively applied) is based on the fact that nearly a century of asymmetric conflict, guerilla warfare, insurgency and terrorism campaigns (not to mention a couple conventional wars) have failed to achieve the desired ends and stated objectives. Most Respectfully, R
As Voltaire said "common sense is not so common". One could argue that for all the violence and blood and misery, the Palestinians did actualy achieve something with the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. OTOH, I don't think there is any question that both the price and the decades it required was exhorbitantly expensive. I believe that a concerted and unified peaceful civil disobedience resistence to the occupation would yield results faster and more effectively. The IDF and Israel do not want images of breaking up peaceful demonstrations with violence beaming around the world and especially into American homes. But, it seems nothing more than wishful thinking that the average palestinian can overcome their own violence prone factions.
This is an excursion in <malapropism>, this is a false lamentation of no historical value, it is not acceptable! I believe that there is no <occupation> for this is the <Ancestral Home> of the Jews... I believe there are not so called <Palestinians> as they are only Arabs squatting on land that is NOT theirs. I believe in civil disobedience for the Israelis... not to propagate the blunder committed and not to provide labor for these miscreants as long as they do not disarm and swear allegiance to the Flag of Israel. And, this will be an option... Behave and be empowered to seek labor in Israel or Rebel and be overcome. The Land of Israel is the inheritance of the Jewish people!!!!!!!!
why, because the Bible says so? The Land of Israel includes much land east of the Jordan river. Should the Jews conquer that land?
That's like saying that the Jews were merely squatters in Germany, Poland, Austria, Russia...the land didn't really belong to them and they had no right to it.
Bendor seriously. You would never accept it if all the arabs that live in the west bank and east jerusalem and gaza disarm and swear allegience to Israel, in effect become citizens of Israel. In a scenerio like that the jews would become a minority in the jewish homeland itself! And then in order for Israel to remain the jewish state, you would have to end democracy and be forced institute a two tiered citizenship model with jews voting and arabs not. Under a scenerio like that there is absolutely no way that Israel could hang on to its current base of international support. IOW everyone would abandon you. Despite the fact that we both support the state of Israel as the jewish homeland, both believe that arab intransigence created and fueled this generational conflict, that Israel's security is paramount in any peace agreement we are diametrically opposed regarding the jew's modern entitlement to land, the military occupation, the viability of annexation and recognition of palestinian rights. But you do do false lamentation quite well.
There is no such scenario and the picture you display is not realistic since they fed you cocka mamy numbers. Come over and visit...
So what am I missing in your very own articulation of what should be done? I am aware that some say that the actual palestinian population is overstated by about a million or so, but even then their birth rate is three or four times as great as Israelis, so within a generation, the result would be a jewish minority.
Caroline Glick dares clarify Israel's status vs the Arabs and Great Britain VIDEO Caroline Glick made an in depth investigation on demographics (she is a person in authority by now) her audio is a vindication of everything you believe BLINDLY in... Let us talk some more later. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx_ML5oCtMU&feature=c4-overview&list=UU37YEqjkoOcx5y2WjiuEsvQ Caroline Glick is the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. She is also the Senior Fellow for Middle East Affairs of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security, graduated from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1991 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science. She worked in the IDF's Judge Advocate General division during the First Intifada in 1992, and while there edited and co-authored an IDF-published book, Israel, the Intifada and the Rule of Law. Following the Oslo Accords, she worked as coordinator of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. She retired from the military with the rank of captain at the end of 1996. She also served as assistant foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
You would have made a lot more sense by explaining your contradictions; " I'd be a "terrorist" too if I was in the Palestinians hopeless shoes." And ... "Unfortunately the israeli government is the true terrorist organization" So, if you were a Palestinian, you would wish to be a true terrorist or as you say, "The Israeli Government?" Why do you wish to be a member of the Israeli Government?
Something just arrived today and clarifies a lot dark and deceptive nuances of Islam. Many Things Rotten in Denmark ~by Andrew E. Harrod FrontPageMagazine.com November 13, 2013 http://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech#print Print http://www.meforum.org/article_send.php?id=3672 Send http://www.meforum.org/rss.xml RSS Share: http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?source=webclient&text=Many+Things+Rotten+in+Denmark http://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik...tp://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech http://www.meforum.org/facebook_lik...tp://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech Be the first of your friends to like this. A Danish appeals court recently upheld the conviction under a Danish hate speech law of an Iranian-Danish woman for her remarks condemnatory of Islam. Coming amidst the controversial statements by another Dane of Muslim background, this conviction raises troubling questions about who may say what about Islam. The artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan ran afoul of Danish authorities with a blog entry printed in a December 2011 issue of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper of 2005 Danish Muhammad caricature notoriety. Bazrafkan expressed being "very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters." Such abuse resulted "according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian" from a "defective and inhumane culture—if you can even call it a culture at all." Bazrafkan deemed Islam a "defective and inhumane religion whose textbook, the Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined." To read the rest of the article please click below http://www.meforum.org/3672/denmark-hate-speech
^ Youtube Pulls "We Con the World" Parody 12.Jump up ^ Why did YouTube ban 'We Con the World'? 13.Jump up ^ YouTube removes ‘We Con the World’ video, Noah Rayman, JPost, 14 June 2010 14.^ Jump up to: a b "The Jerusalem Post Should Fire Caroline Glick for Making a Racist Video," Huffington Post, June 5, 2010 15.Jump up ^ Video spoof catches fire, fuels Israelis’ PR battle Dina Kraft, JTA 10 June 2010 16.Jump up ^ ‘We Con the World’ gets 1m. hits 17.Jump up ^ "Israel forced to apologise for YouTube spoof of Gaza flotilla," Guardian, June 6, 2010 18.Jump up ^ 'We Con the World' gets 1m. hits. Hartman, Ben. 'JPost.com 19.Jump up ^ "Our World: Defending freedom's defenders" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Glick
So you are suggesting that theft, provocation, intimidation, the destruction of means of providing a meagre income (olive groves), the continuing blockade etc, etc., are reasonable 'techniques' when aiming for peace? Excuse me if I either misunderstood or took this as a preposterous notion.
The artist Firoozeh Bazrafkan ran afoul of Danish authorities with a blog entry printed in a December 2011 issue of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper of 2005 Danish Muhammad caricature notoriety. Bazrafkan expressed being "very convinced that Muslim men around the world rape, abuse and kill their daughters." Such abuse resulted "according to my understanding as a Danish-Iranian" from a "defective and inhumane culture—if you can even call it a culture at all." Bazrafkan deemed Islam a "defective and inhumane religion whose textbook, the Koran, is more immoral, deplorable and crazy than manuals of the two other global religions combined." As explained in an interview, Bazrafkan had appropriated the text with light personal editing from the free speech activist Lars Kragh Andersen. Bazrafkan acted in solidarity with Andersen after his conviction under Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code (in Danish here) for the same posting at the news website 180Grader. As one English translation reads, Section 266b punishes any public "pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation." Bazrafkan's motive was "to show Lars support because, as a Danish Iranian, I know what a big problem Islamic regimes are." "Islamic codes give men the rights to do whatever they want to women and children," something called "disgusting" by Bazrafkan, and "also prevent people in Iran from discussing and saying what they want." Bazrafkan sought an "artistic manifesto to show that we cannot say what we want and we cannot criticize Islamic regimes." Accordingly, Bazrafkan's website includes a video showing a casually-clothed Bazrafkan jump roping on top of an Ayatollah Khomeini photo (other Bazrafkan criticisms of Islam and Iran are available here and here). Denmark's Western High Court on September 16, 2013, convicted her on prosecutorial appeal from successful district court defense. From a panel of three judges and jurors each, five found Bazrafkan guilty of presenting "statements in which a group of people are mocked and degraded because of their belief." The reviewing court sentenced Bazrafkan to a 5,000 Kroner fine or five days in prison, a decision she intends to appeal to the Danish Supreme Court before going to prison in lieu of paying the fine. Opposing the decision, Bazrafkan noted that she did not say that "ALL Muslim men committed horrible acts," but merely offered a "critique of religion," something Section 266b "shouldn't be used to protect." The Iranian-born former Muslim Bazrafkan had also previously criticized Judaism and Christianity, but was more concerned with her repressed relatives in Iran. Bazrafkan claimed for people the right "to write whatever they want," even "if it's stupid or well formulated…so long as they don't threaten other people." Police dismissed a person who threatened to dismember and feed to his dogs Bazrafkan, meanwhile, as unserious. Bazrafkan's intellectual arguments were unavailing in part because, as Jesper Langballe stated during his December 3, 2010, district court "confession," Section 266b's "sole criterion of culpability…is whether someone feels offended…not whether what I have said is true or false." Like Bazrafkan, the Danish parliamentarian Langballe suffered a conviction for condemning Islamic norms justifying abuses of women. Indeed, Danish country reports to the European Union's Fundamental Rights Agency (see here and here) describe Section 266b as applicable to anyone who "makes a statement or imparts other information" with the stipulated offensive nature. Danish journalist Lars Hedegaard, meanwhile, narrowly escaped a Section 266b conviction in 2012 after the Danish Supreme Court determined that he had no intention of publicly disseminating his condemnation of Muslim male treatment of females. Concurrent with Bazrafkan's legal difficulties, Yahya Hassan, an 18-year-old Palestinian-Danish poet, has attributed high criminality rates among Danish youths with migrant Muslim backgrounds to poor Muslim parenting. Hassan, who entered an institution at age 13 after several years of juvenile delinquency, complained of watching "our fathers passively rot on the couch with the remote in their hands, living off state benefits, accompanied by a disillusioned mother who never put her foot down." Muslim youth "who became criminals and bums…weren't let down by the system, but by our parents." Although Hassan has not faced any Section 266b prosecutions, numerous graphic death threats have appeared at the Facebook page of a television show in which he appeared. With European societies becoming increasingly heterogeneous, Islamic beliefs and behaviors criticized by Bazrafkan and Hassan demand discussion in an open forum free from legal retribution. Serious policy issues concerning Islam in free societies will simply not disappear due to a politically correct mandated silence. Laws like Section 266b are accordingly not just a threat to liberty, but to security as well. (She sounds like she is sick.)
snakestretcher, et al, No, actually you are NOT misunderstanding. You are very close to the mark. (COMMENT) In the Middle East, there are principally two philosophies. First is anything goes. Most recently, it was expressed by Dr 'Issam 'Adwan (Director, HAMAS Refugee Affairs) in his recent Article (published July 16, 2013), but is also expressed in other established policy such as the HAMAS Covenant and the Palestinian National Charter. Dr 'Issam 'Adwan said: "What we call resistance, our occupier enemy and its allies call terrorism. Will the resistance continue to stand with its arms folded when it is falsely accused of terrorism? No one has the right to condemn the resistance for any of the methods that it adopts, because it knows better than everyone else what is good for it and for its noble objectives." This is a Machiavellian concept (the ends justifies the means). It supports Jihad (as in the Covenant) and armed asymmetric warfare by the Fedayeen (as in the Charter). It is the same concept in the Arab Convention on Terrorism to "affirming the right of peoples to combat foreign occupation and aggression by whatever means." The first concept, as stated above, rejects the UN policy expressed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, "Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts." The second philosophy is that of graduated increases in pressure (commercial, political, economic, trade, sanctions, monetary, embargo, etc). It is based on the idea that the application is applied from the least lethal and least direct conflict ---> to ---> gradually increased to more lethal and confrontational. Its foundation is that it recognizes the difference between magnitude (property destruction is less drastic than casualties, and casualties are less drastic than lethal intervention). In such cases, erecting a wall is less lethal than shooting potentially dangerous illegal line crossers. The second concept does not presuppose that all means are justified. It would not support piracy, hijacking, suicide bombing, and other terrorist activity such as the Olympic Massacre or operations condoned like that of Izz ad-din al-Qassam and the Palestinian Black Hand. Most Respectfully, R
She is totally entitled to her opinion and should be allowed to express it. This stupid law is a direct suppression of free speech. If I was in Denmark and said "evangelical christians are all lousy parents brainwashing their kids to believe in all manner of lies and hatred of others", I would be convicted if an evangelical christian claimed offense. A comedian could be convicted for his act - can you imagine a black comic getting convicted because he talked about "fat lazy ghetto queens"? Being offensive should not be a crime. There is a big difference between promoting hatred and violence, and merely being offensive, when being offensive is such an subjective and individual judgement. In your own experience I am sure you have encountered many people who have been offended by the truth of a matter.
The Jews in the area should understand that better than anybody. Didn't their zealots terrorize the Roman occupiers a couple thousand years ago?
