Here's a link from Article 4 of the Geneva conventions that require protections of civilians by the occupying force.

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

I think it is you Owl that might want to brush up on the Geneva Conventions. Protecting Civillian populations is Article 4 and Israel has been condemned numerous times for violating it.

You know another thing with this that is absolute hogwash. You can protect the rights of the minority. Come up with a constitution that is based on international human rights. You can't change it. Wperation of church and state. Any of you knuckleheads that are worried about the imposition of Sharia Law are not worthy of debate. You could definitely gaurantee with a third grade understanding of civics a way that Sharia Law would never be implemented.

(12-27-2016 02:41 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You know another thing with this that is absolute hogwash. You can protect the rights of the minority. Come up with a constitution that is based on international human rights. You can't change it. Wperation of church and state. Any of you knuckleheads that are worried about the imposition of Sharia Law are not worthy of debate. You could definitely gaurantee with a third grade understanding of civics a way that Sharia Law would never be implemented.

Just FYI, "international law" is more of an international suggestion than "law." Treaties between nations sometimes have the force of law, but most things the UN does are resolution which mean nothing, i.e. the current Israel vote. It was just a statement of condemnation. Real laws are produced by sovereign nations and have the force of the nation behind them. The UN has no real power or authority. Nations have not submitted their own authority or sovereignty to it. It's more of an international forum rather than a legislative body.

As to the point about Sharia, I would submit that you are wrong about that, any cohesive group which gains majority power can find a way to circumvent constitutional safeguards. For example, look at how the muslim brotherhood came to power in Egypt recently. It took a military coup to overcome the imposition of that government. For an older example, look at Hilter overcome the Weimar constitutional protections.

It is also foolish to believe that adherents to a violent dogma will become reasonable once they are given political rights and power. Here's a recent poll which stated that 72% of young Palestinians support the use of violence against Israel.

Link to the Poll

The primary mistake we as westerners make is assuming that everyone is like us; that with basic freedoms and respect they will assimilate into society and act peacefully. This is a wrong assumption on our parts. Some people adhere to dogmas which they value more than our values. They would use our political process and freedoms against to impose their own dogma on us. Look at all the problems multiculturalism has brought to Europe. We have to face the fact that Islamists want to take over our nations and force the whole world to submit to Islam.

(12-27-2016 12:38 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2016 12:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You crack me up Owl. You have blatant violations right in front of your nose but you ignore them.

You crack me up, Mach. You have blatant violations right in front of your nose and you ignore them.

You have right violations on both sides. Israel has proven that they can take care of themselves. We should just wash our hands of the situation and let the chips fall where they may.

Best response in the thread.

That's the younger generation that is 20% of the population. It would be interesting to see a poll of the entire population. I see they have the same trouble with false news as we do.

(12-27-2016 02:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Here's a link from Article 4 of the Geneva conventions that require protections of civilians by the occupying force.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
I think it is you Owl that might want to brush up on the Geneva Conventions. Protecting Civillian populations is Article 4 and Israel has been condemned numerous times for violating it.

That's Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and it is merely a definitional paragraph. It does not contain any substantive guidance. All it does is describe what persons are subject to the protections of that Convention. Again, there are four conventions, the first deals basically with soldiers, the second with sailors, the third with POWs, and the fourth with civilians.

Perhaps you should read the whole thing. This is not the whole thing, but it includes some significant points that you missed,

"Article 4
Persons protected by the Convention are those who at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of persons a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

Really, seriously, don't try to tell me what the Geneva Conventions say.

Then why are there so many resolutions saying Israel violates Article 4?


Article 4

1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons
belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human
rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full
equality before the law.

As Yoram Dinstein, former rector of Law at Tel Aviv University and world authority on the international laws of war, notes, any confusion about whether the 4th Geneva Convention is applicable in the West Bank is cleared up by Article 4 of the Convention (Dinstein 2009), which states: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. (Geneva Convention IV).

By the fact that Israel conquered a territory that was inhabited by civilians who are not Israeli citizens (i.e. Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank), this makes the Fourth Geneva Convention applicable, and de jure, makes Israel’s control of the West Bank a military occupation.

Israeli jurist Theodor Meron also concludes that “the application of the [4th Geneva] Convention should not be interpreted as the recognition of the status of Jordan in the West Bank. It must be remembered that, as a humanitarian convention par excellence, the Fourth Geneva Convention is concerned primarily with people, rather than territory; with human rights, rather than with legal questions pertaining to territorial status” (Meron 1979: 109).

Furthermore, in how many cases of war and occupation are the sovereign rights to a particular land not disputed? Is Israel’s situation really that unique? It would appear to be a very narrow and ineffective interpretation of international law if the rights afforded to civilians under the 4th Geneva Convention are disregarded in every case when it cannot be determined which sovereign has legal ownership to the land under occupation.

Thy also violate the conventions by moving their citizens into the disputed territories. They are a rogue nation and regime.

(12-27-2016 02:21 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How do you engage in a one state solution with an opposite side whose sworn goal is to eradicate you?
Please provide links

Here are a few:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6973/...ifada-goal

"A recent poll found that 48% of Palestinians interviewed believe that the real goal of the "intifada" is to "liberate all of Palestine." In other words, approximately half of Palestinians believe that the "intifada" should lead to the destruction of Israel, which would be replaced with a Palestinian state -- one that now would be ruled by Hamas and jihadi organizations such as Islamic State and Al-Qaeda."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...24,00.html

"The primary goal of Palestinian nationalism is to wipe out the State of Israel, not permit its existence. Any form of Palestinian statehood that accepts Israeli sovereignty in what they believe is Muslim land stolen by Jews is, by their definition, heretical. That is clearly evident in the PLO Covenant and Hamas Charter."

http://cnpublications.net/2013/02/27/pal...te-israel/

http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-palest...-minority/

Mach, there is one essential reality that you are glossing over. One side is targeting civilians. It's not Israel. It's the Palestinians.

(12-27-2016 04:24 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Thy also violate the conventions by moving their citizens into the disputed territories. They are a rogue nation and regime.

Israel won the West Bank in the 1956 war. They decided to give them back as a show of good faith. The Arab world then launched attacks against Israel from inside that territory. Israel won the West Bank again in 1967. This time they decided not to give it back, based upon what had happened previously. They then successfully defended those territories in the 1973. When you've won an area three times in three different wars, you have a pretty strong claim to it.

Israel has been pressured to give that land up to further the peace process. They still have not gotten peace in return. There's a limit as to how much they should be required to give up without getting anything of substance in return. How much do you think they should give up without getting anything in return?

As for the UN resolutions, do you really want to suggest that the UN is anything more than a partisan club? There are lots of Arab/Muslim nations and they have lots of friends. That's pretty much enough votes to pass a UN resolution right there. UN votes are a political, not objective, process.

I looked for the opposite of your poll. What percent of Israelis acknowledge Palestinians right to exist. I can't find one. That would be an interesting number. I was also discouraged when I read various polls where the vast majority ( over 80%) of Palestinians denied Israel's right to exist in its current form. Yeah that's a really high number and I don't know how you get past it. I also read an article from the Mosaic that's pro Israel and it left me very disheartened. No easy solutions here.

(12-27-2016 04:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I looked for the opposite of your poll. What percent of Israelis acknowledge Palestinians right to exist. I can't find one. That would be an interesting number. I was also discouraged when I read various polls where the vast majority ( over 80%) of Palestinians denied Israel's right to exist in its current form. Yeah that's a really high number and I don't know how you get past it. I also read an article from the Mosaic that's pro Israel and it left me very disheartened. No easy solutions here.

I don't think there are many, if any, Israelis denying the Palestinians' right to EXIST.

Sounds like this exercise has caused you to do some reading and broaden your understanding of the issue. If so, that's a good thing.

(12-27-2016 01:59 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ohhhh gawd No Bull. What kind rocks do you guys climb out of?

I abhor violence and attacks against innocents. Have you graduated from middle school yet and does your Mom know you are on the computer?


Hate breeds hate. Violence is never the answer.

Good. I agree. It took you a long time to answer the question. I hope you agree with me that BLM has not adopted the "ethos" of MLK's tactics....

It's really discouraging. They are a downtrodden group with very little hope for the future. Can't say I can blame them. What has happened to them as a people is depressing.

Bull isn't this situation depressing and complicated enough???? What the F are you conflating issues for????? Do you have ADD? Serious question? This issue has plenty of tangents to explore.

(12-27-2016 04:46 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It's really discouraging. They are a downtrodden group with very little hope for the future. Can't say I can blame them. What has happened to them as a people is depressing.

But it's not like they were doing great until Israel came along. They've been downtrodden for two millennia. Israel has probably treated then as well as anybody has. Israel probably treats them better than any Arab country today.

MY question was not about a solution to Israel/Palestinian relations...etc. My question was why is Obama Anti-Semitic? i.e. why do progressives loathe Israel.

Mach what makes you pro Palestinian?

I am trying to understand this facet of the Progressive believe system.

I see the uneven power. I'll never forget watching a 20/20 town hall when I was in college. I went into that with no pre conceived notions and the way the Israeli delegation treated the Palestinians disgusted me. Looked down upon them. It left a sour taste in my mouth. Might made right. I also feel for them because they had their land stolen from them.


Just look at the way you guys get fired up with the EPA. I think that's probably an appropriate comparison for you guys. They just thugged up and Bull dozed homes. It's the uneven power that gets to me. Then when you factor in that they act that way because we give them billions and protect them. I don't think their loyalty would ever be the same if the situations were reversed. They mingle way too much in our internal politics. Then they thumb their noses at our suggestions. It's a bunch of things that they do that tick me off.