So why do people hate Israel?

[senojekips]

I see you are still avoiding the point why this was raised even after at least two prior reminders. Anything to avoid admitting you are wrong , eh?

What a messy answer. Again a lot of blablabla and your usual "evidence" like "Disproven several times" , you barely read my (and others) posts that you don't like, yet you claim what I (we) said is not true. You weren't drinking again were you?

Yes, of course I'm drinking a lot,...of water, the average daytime temperature here is 43 degrees C.

I note that you never said a single thing about the subject or to show how my statements are wrong? By now you must realise that nobody really reads your answers, because you are a proven liar who will say anything to try and gain a point, remember "the Palestinians who didn't resist the Israelis, then suddenly you are complaining about alleged Palestinian "atrocities" committed defending their land?

Of course it has nothing to do with your statement because your statement is flat out wrong.

OK you quote both posts and explain how my initial statement is wrong..... along with the photos and explanation as to how you miraculously diagnosed that the victim's foot was uninjured inside of his shoe. You are really getting yourself in a tangle here aren't you?... and it's only going to get worse for you so long as you keep lying. :lol:

Ever seen a dead boy lift his arm and look to a camera? You never looked at the uncut video did you?

OK,... please post this uncut video that you allege to have seen, but even if you are correct, this in no way proves that he did not die of his injuries. (As has been said previously at least 3 times).

Same answer as in post About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and
Seno, you are making a fool of yourself. You made a mistake but are to stubborn to admit it. That hole, which is not always seen on the video, can not come from a steel bullet that penetrated his foot. There's no blood to be seen. If he was shot like you said he was he would be crippled for the rest of his life. You see things that you want to see, not what is actually there.

I have not only quoted facts, I have also posted frames from the video to support those facts, as yoet all you have done is quote Israeli Hasbara with no visible evidence.

The article you quote from the Guardian can be read here: Israeli soldiers charged over shooting of Palestinian prisoner. I doubt if you read it, because this comes from the same article:

Rahmeh, one of several dozen Palestinians who had been throwing stones at soldiers, suffered a bruised toe.​

I have another one, from your beloved Palestinians: Palestine: Information with Provenance (PIWP database)

The Palestinian man, Ashraf Abu Rahmeh, said yesterday he was injured in his left toe and treated at the scene. During an interview, Abu Rahmeh, 27, took off his shoe and showed a large blister on his toe, with bruising underneath. He said for several days after the shooting, the toe was swollen.

I see you have been unable to produce visual evidence of this alleged "blistered toe", which after all the fuss about the original shooting would certainly have had photos taken of it. Previously given evidence by Israeli doctors regarding the injuries suffered from steel bullets make a complete mockery of the "blistered toe" story. Another reason demonstrating that this is no more than Israeli Hasbara.

I only quoted the article to establish the date as the same as when he was shot and disprove your deliberate lie that "he was not a Protester" as it clearly states that he was arrested for "protesting", we know that the article is only Israeli Hasbara (without any photographic evidence), as I have posted a selection of clips from the video clearly showing the exit hole on the sole of the shoe with the spreading stain coming from it, hence my previously made point about how your lies and the lies of the Israeli Hasbara department (one and the same thing) never match up with the clearly visible physical evidence.

The stain emanating from that hole can be seen in a number of frames as it reflects the sun. I can't say categorically that it is blood, but what else would it be after having been shot through the foot, certainly not perspiration or a "broken blister". It's unfortunate for you, that the video actually shows a lot more than you realised before you started lying about what could and could not be seen.

 

[MontyB]

Maybe this could be why the world is changing its stance on Israel?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WBRO3Q_YGE&feature=player_detailpage"]‫וידיאו: הצבא מלווה התקפת מתנחלים בכפר עוריף‬‎ - YouTube[/ame]

Nothing like bravely throwing rocks while the army provides protection, would be interesting to see whether they would have turned a blind eye had rocks been coming the other way.

I look forward to hearing how this never happened.

And on the positive side...
Palestine is beginning to become accepted.

Academy drops 'territories' in Palestine reference

8:47 AM Saturday Jan 18, 2014

Adam Bakri in a scene from the film "Omar.".

Thursday's Oscar nominations had some new language in the foreign language category: Nominee "Omar" was described as being from "Palestine," a reference the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has carefully avoided in the past.
"Omar," a drama set amid the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was directed by Hany Abu-Assad, whose 2005 thriller "Paradise Now" was also nominated in the foreign language category. But after a tussle with the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles, the academy chose to refer to the film as a product of the "Palestinian Territories" or "Palestinian Authority," rather than simply "Palestine."
After hearing the news of his latest nomination and how it was identified, Abu-Assad said Thursday that having the academy refer to his entry as being from Palestine was a step in the right direction.
"The world starts to recognize that without giving the Palestinians a just solution, there will always be problems, there will always be something wrong," he said in a phone interview.

"I'm happy to get recognition from people in this business and to represent Palestine," he added. "It's not a country yet, it's not a state, it's a nation fighting for equality and freedom and justice and to represent that is an honor."
Assad said he's also received positive reviews for "Omar" in Israel, whose own Oscar entry, "Bethlehem," focusing on the relationship between an Israeli agent and his Palestinian informant, did not receive a nomination on Thursday.
Regarding its apparent change in policy about describing Palestine, academy spokeswoman Teni Melidonian said, "We follow United Nations protocol. This is not a political situation at all. We are just in the business of honoring filmmaking."
Israel's culture and foreign ministries and the Israeli consulate in Los Angeles declined to comment.
Rabbi Marvin Hier, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, had more to say: "Getting the academy's recognition may be nice for the Palestinians, but the only recognition that really counts is the recognition that will come when they reach an agreement with the people of Israel," said Hier, a member of the motion picture academy. "Legally, there is no such country as Palestine until there will be a settlement of the Palestine-Israeli conflict."
___
Associated Press writer Tia Goldenberg in Jerusalem contributed to this report.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/united-states/news/article.cfm?l_id=110&objectid=11188044

 

[VDKMS]

I see you are still avoiding the point why this was raised even after at least two prior reminders. Anything to avoid admitting you are wrong , eh?
Yes, of course I'm drinking a lot,...of water, the average daytime temperature here is 43 degrees C.

I note that you never said a single thing about the subject or to show how my statements are wrong? By now you must realise that nobody really reads your answers, because you are a proven liar who will say anything to try and gain a point, remember "the Palestinians who didn't resist the Israelis, then suddenly you are complaining about alleged Palestinian "atrocities" committed defending their land?

Up untill today there is no officially recognised Palestinian state. The PA is founded thanks to Israel. Neither Jordan nor the British Mandate nor the Ottoman Empire ever allowed a "Palestinian" state. The "Palestinians" fighting the Israelis are Jihadists, Islamists. They don't fight for a Palestinian state, they want the Jews out of muslim conquered land. The Jews revolted several times against the occupier of their former homeland. The "Palestinians" never did that for two reasons:
1 - there never were "Palestinians" before Arafat came along.
2 - there never was a "Palestinian" Homeland before Israel helped them create one.

OK you quote both posts and explain how my initial statement is wrong..... along with the photos and explanation as to how you miraculously diagnosed that the victim's foot was uninjured inside of his shoe. You are really getting yourself in a tangle here aren't you?... and it's only going to get worse for you so long as you keep lying. :lol:

Instead of rambling along you would better read my posts. You said , and I quote from your post #1676Last edited by senojekips; 2 Days Ago at 23:10

I know you realise that I barely read your answers, but I read them well enough to see when you are just padding out a heap of rubbish to make it look like you've answered.​

well, you'd better read my answers and your own linked documents. Remember this?

Originally Posted by senojekips View Post
Originally Posted by The Guardian
The shooting took place on July 7 this year during PROTESTS against the continued construction of Israel's West Bank barrier. A bystander's video was released by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.

that's from your post #14 from the tread About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and

The article that you refer to , but do not give a link to for obvious reasons ,
says that he has a bruised toe!

I gave another link from a Palestinian web site where he said ( and showed to the reporter) he had a blister on his toe with bruising underneath.

Why do you ignore that? So you claim to know it all better than the victim himself??

OK,... please post this uncut video that you allege to have seen, but even if you are correct, this in no way proves that he did not die of his injuries. (As has been said previously at least 3 times).

You ask me to show the evidence but in case I'm right, and I am, you already ignore it? Is that how you look at evidence?
here it is:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUz55tLLXUg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUz55tLLXUg[/ame]

I have not only quoted facts, I have also posted frames from the video to support those facts, as yoet all you have done is quote Israeli Hasbara with no visible evidence.

I see you have been unable to produce visual evidence of this alleged "blistered toe", which after all the fuss about the original shooting would certainly have had photos taken of it. Previously given evidence by Israeli doctors regarding the injuries suffered from steel bullets make a complete mockery of the "blistered toe" story. Another reason demonstrating that this is no more than Israeli Hasbara.

I only quoted the article to establish the date as the same as when he was shot and disprove your deliberate lie that "he was not a Protester" as it clearly states that he was arrested for "protesting", we know that the article is only Israeli Hasbara (without any photographic evidence), as I have posted a selection of clips from the video clearly showing the exit hole on the sole of the shoe with the spreading stain coming from it, hence my previously made point about how your lies and the lies of the Israeli Hasbara department (one and the same thing) never match up with the clearly visible physical evidence.

The stain emanating from that hole can be seen in a number of frames as it reflects the sun. I can't say categorically that it is blood, but what else would it be after having been shot through the foot, certainly not perspiration or a "broken blister". It's unfortunate for you, that the video actually shows a lot more than you realised before you started lying about what could and could not be seen.

You still don't get it do you? The victim himself said it. You claim to know it all better from Australia watching a Pallywood video than the person who was fysically there, 1 meter next to the Israeli soldier. He didn't even go to the hospital!

Here is an article from someone who shot himself in the foot with a shotgun, not a 15mm steel bullet like you claim the victim was shot with, they had to stem the blood and his toe had to be amputated. This is one of the comments:

SW France, 18/4/2013 17:48 Exactly, I love to read comments on articals like this most made by people that would not know the difference between the toe or heal of a firearm if asked. It is painfully obvious by the ridiculas comments made they do not know anything about ballistics either. A bullet does not make a clean round hole being pointed they "push" the material aside, a shotgun on the other hand at a very short distance makes a CLEAN round hole because the pellets have NOT spread plus they are encased in a plastic wad that keeps them tight together. I have shot in over 20 countries in shooting competitions (Olympic Skeet) and unfortunatly over the years have seen 3/4 similar accidents.​

If you still don't get it I advice you to seek medical help.

I found a new link on aljazeera, hardly a pro Israeli media group: Israeli filmed shooting prisoner

A statement on BTselem's website said Abu Rahma stated that the bullet hit his left toe.​

@MontyB

"Palestine" is not the problem. Jerusalem is. They want Jerusalem as their capital and control over the Temple Mount. They claim it is because the Mosque on the Temple mount is the third holiest site for Muslims. What they ignore is that the Temple Mount is the Jews's first holiest site. It's about religion. It was because Israel wouldn't give them control of the Temple Mount that a peace deal was not accepted. The settlements are not that a great problem. Israel want to swap them against Israeli Arab towns. guess what: the Arabs don't want to be part of a "Palestine".

Arabs: We don't want to be part of Palestinian state


But it seems they don't want their own people either!

 

[senojekips]

1 - there never were "Palestinians" before Arafat came along.
2 - there never was a "Palestinian" Homeland before Israel helped them create one.

I should not even bother answering this as like everything else you have posted in the last two years or so it has all be disproven before How many times have you been told what they are called is of no consequence. There were no Israelis before 1948, but there were Palestinians in the 5th century BCE because there was a place called Palestine and the people who live in Palestine are by default Palestinians. You can't "create" a state, country or homeland by driving the majority of the population off their own land and stealing both their land and possessions and killing those who resist the illegal takeover. That is NOT helping anyone except the Israelis.

Instead of rambling along you would better read my posts. You said , and I quote from your post #1676Last edited by senojekips; 2 Days Ago at 23:10

I know you realise that I barely read your answers, but I read them well enough to see when you are just padding out a heap of rubbish to make it look like you've answered.​

well, you'd better read my answers and your own linked documents. Remember this?

that's from your post #14 from the tread About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and

The article that you refer to , but do not give a link to for obvious reasons ,
says that he has a bruised toe!

I gave another link from a Palestinian web site where he said ( and showed to the reporter) he had a blister on his toe with bruising underneath.

Why do you ignore that? So you claim to know it all better than the victim himself??

All of which has been shown to be Hasbara with at least three good reasons as to why it is a lie
(1) Evidence given by B'tselem et al, in their submission to the Israeli High Court when appying for a greater punishment for the sh!tbags who fired the steel projectile through the victim's foot in which they stated.

Last September Abu Rahmeh , from the village of Bil’in, scene of weekly protests against the Israeli wall, sustained critical wounds in his leg and was left to bleed for some time until the soldiers allowed an ambulance to take to a nearby hospital in the central West Bank city of Ramallah. I doubt that B'tselem would send false evidence to the highest Court in the land in support of their case. If they did, the IDF would soon have had the High court reject their submission.

(2) Evidence given by Israeli doctors showing that these steel projectiles can penetrate the skull and break bones at ranges of over 40 metres.
(3) Video evidence clearly showing the exit hole.
(3a)The victim was under dures because of a death threat issued by the members of the IDF.

Whereas all you give is links to hasbara issued to papers by the Israeli Hasbara Department, without any backing evidence, no video not even a photo.

You ask me to show the evidence but in case I'm right, and I am, you already ignore it? Is that how you look at evidence?
here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUz55tLLXUg

It does not prove a thing. All you have shown was that he was still alive at that point where for some reason the footage just stops dead.
You give no answer as to why the Israelis have been unable to ever find the boy since this event, and when after lying about the wrong person being buried they were given permission to exhume the body to verify who it was, they suddenly changed their mind. More lies

You still don't get it do you? The victim himself said it. You claim to know it all better from Australia watching a Pallywood video than the person who was fysically there, 1 meter next to the Israeli soldier. He didn't even go to the hospital!

B'tselem disagree as in the quote above. "sustained critical wounds in his leg and was left to bleed for some time until the soldiers allowed an ambulance to take to a nearby hospital in the central West Bank city of Ramallah."

Here is an article from someone who shot himself in the foot with a shotgun, not a 15mm steel bullet like you claim the victim was shot with, they had to stem the blood and his toe had to be amputated. This is one of the comments:

SW France, 18/4/2013 17:48 Exactly, I love to read comments on articals like this most made by people that would not know the difference between the toe or heal of a firearm if asked. It is painfully obvious by the ridiculas comments made they do not know anything about ballistics either. A bullet does not make a clean round hole being pointed they "push" the material aside, a shotgun on the other hand at a very short distance makes a CLEAN round hole because the pellets have NOT spread plus they are encased in a plastic wad that keeps them tight together. I have shot in over 20 countries in shooting competitions (Olympic Skeet) and unfortunatly over the years have seen 3/4 similar accidents.​

​

A great example of the lengths you will go to, to avoid the truth. "Shotgun injuries???? WTF has this to do with the subject? More totally unrelated "padding" Absolutely nothing to do with the case whatsoever. Shotguns fire an ounce and a quarter of lead pellets at far higher velocity. We are talking about a cylindrical piece of steel lightly coated in rubber or plastic at approximately 1/6th the velocity but still high enough to break bones and penetrate the skull.

Regarding your alleged clean round hole theory, you show your complete ignorance, the damage done is completely dependent on the projectile, it's velocity and the material that it penetrates, we have rubber conveyor belt as part of the backstop at our local shooting range, a large calibre wadcutter round (Very similar in shape to an Israeli rubber coated steel projectile) punches out a relatively clean round hole a mm or two smaller than the projectile itself, holes from FMJ rounds can be barely seen.I'd suggest that you are reading too many cowboy books or your Hasbara controllers are just feeding you trash.

 

[BritinBritain]

Up untill today there is no officially recognised Palestinian state. The PA is founded thanks to Israel. Neither Jordan nor the British Mandate nor the Ottoman Empire ever allowed a "Palestinian" state. The "Palestinians" fighting the Israelis are Jihadists, Islamists. They don't fight for a Palestinian state, they want the Jews out of muslim conquered land. The Jews revolted several times against the occupier of their former homeland. The "Palestinians" never did that for two reasons:
1 - there never were "Palestinians" before Arafat came along.
2 - there never was a "Palestinian" Homeland before Israel helped them create one.

How odd, because when my dad was in PALESTINE at the end of WW2 the locals were called and known as PALESTINIANS. He was asked if he would like to join the PALESTINE police.

A short history of the PALESTINE POLICE.

The life span of the Palestine Police Force is brief when set against the long history of Palestine but is vivid and vibrant in the memories of those who served in that beautiful country.

On 9th. December, 1917 Jerusalem surrendered to British and Commonwealth Forces under the command of Sir H.H. Allenby, G.C.B.,G.C.M.G., and on the 11th December, 1917 Allenby entered Jerusalem by way of the Jaffa Gate. By November, 1918 the First World War had finished with the defeat of Germany and her allies, including Turkey, and the whole of Palestine had been conquered. The question of administering the conquered territory now arose.

Policing Jerusalem at first, fell to the Assistant Provost Marshall who was assisted by the Military Police. The A.P.M.'s Headquarters was set up in the compound of the Russian Buildings, later to become Police Headquarters, along the Jaffa Road.

Initially, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (O.E.T.A.) was established and Palestine fell within the District known as O.E.T.A. (South).

With the formation of a Civil Government on 1st. July, 1920 the Palestine Police Force was born.

The first Police Commander was Lt. Col. P.B. Bramley, O.B.E., with the title of Director of Public Security and with the rank of Commandant of Police and Prisons. The police establishment at this time was 18 British Officers supported by 55 Palestinian Officers and 1,144 rank and file. The duties of the Police were described as:-

"Besides fulfilling the ordinary duties of a constabulary, such as the preservation of law and order and the prevention and detection of crime, act as their numbers will allow as escorts for the protection of tax collectors, serve summonses issued by the judicial authorities, distribute Government notices and escort Government treasure throughout the country."

How odd that there was no state known as PALESTINE yet there was a PALESTINE police force policing a country that didn't exist???

 

[MontyB]

I think to be fair we now have two sides being deliberately obtuse, VD is correct in the statement that there was no "nation" of Palestine however everyone else is correct in the understanding that Palestine is a geographical region and has been known as such for about 3500 years.

Palestinians were not "invented" by Arafat, Palestinians are anyone living in the region of Palestine it is quite simply really.

The Palestinian government and police forces were simply administration groups for the region of Palestine.

What these institutions show in my opinion is that British intent was for the formation of a country called Palestine as was required by international law and the Palestine mandate and had it not been for war weariness and Zionist terrorism that is the country we would have had today.

 

[senojekips]

I think to be fair we now have two sides being deliberately obtuse, VD is correct in the statement that there was no "nation" of Palestine however everyone else is correct in the understanding that Palestine is a geographical region and has been known as such for about 3500 years.

But that is not what he said, and even if he did, it would have had no bearing on the debate whatsoever.

1 - there never were "Palestinians" before Arafat came along.

Anyway, if it's good enough for VD to play silly buggers with semantics what shouldn't we? He knows as well as we do, that he has lost this argument every time he brings it up, so who is being obtuse?

Anyway regarding Palestine you only have to watch the first 11 seconds of this movie to hear that Palestine was recognised as such in the 19th century. If you care to watch the remainder it points out how Jews, Christians and Arabs had lived in relative peace for centuries prior to the arrival of the Zionists. So much for VDs claims of no Palestine, and Jews and Arabs unable to live in peace. The arrival of the Zionists tying in with the beginnings of today"s problems become painfully apparent

Jerusalem in 1896

 

[MontyB]

But that is not what he said, and even if he did, it would have had no bearing on the debate whatsoever.

No he didn't say that you are quite correct but he has adopted the method of telling the truth by omission basically politician speak, as long as you skirt around telling the whole truth then to some people it isn't lying.

Anyway regarding Palestine you only have to watch the first 11 seconds of this movie to hear that Palestine was recognised as such in the 19th century. If you care to watch the remainder it points out how Jews, Christians and Arabs had lived in relative peace for centuries prior to the arrival of the Zionists. So much for VDs claims of no Palestine, and Jews and Arabs unable to live in peace. The arrival of the Zionists tying in with the beginnings of today"s problems become painfully apparent

Jerusalem in 1896

I really think the argument has become overly complicated...
1) It has been proven genetically that the bulk of Israeli's do not have roots going back to the holy land.

2) It is obvious that with the disolution of the Ottoman Empire Palestine was under international law meant to get self determination.

3) It was clear from British actions that it was meant to be one nation and anything less than that was a breech of its governing laws.

4) The Balfour document is an irrelevant document as Britain can not give away what is not theirs.

5) 99% of the problem was the influx of zionists from 1920 on.

 

[senojekips]

No he didn't say that you are quite correct but he has adopted the method of telling the truth by omission basically politician speak, as long as you skirt around telling the whole truth then to some people it isn't lying.



I really think the argument has become overly complicated...
1) It has been proven genetically that the bulk of Israeli's do not have roots going back to the holy land.

2) It is obvious that with the disolution of the Ottoman Empire Palestine was under international law meant to get self determination.

3) It was clear from British actions that it was meant to be one nation and anything less than that was a breech of its governing laws.

4) The Balfour document is an irrelevant document as Britain can not give away what is not theirs.

5) 99% of the problem was the influx of zionists from 1920 on.

Precisely,... I know that, you know that, and it is also painfully apparent to anyone who bothers to look at the history of this problem. (except Zionists)

I guess it's just the pig headed bastard in me, that knowing I can't lose, I feel I must just keep playing 'Whack a Rat" with VD's head every time he sticks it up trying to disseminate his pro Israeli lies.

 

[MontyB]

Yeah but he is paid to do this and for the most part you don't go after the guy delivering cigarettes as it is far more effective to go after the company that makes them.

With the Israel/Palestine argument it is far more effective to keep the story simple as anything else just confuses people and confused people generally revert to what they already know or believe.

 

[MontyB]

Livni: We face South Africa-style isolation because of settlements

If peace talks collapse, ‘a wave’ of boycott pressure will crash into Israel, says justice minister. It’s a propaganda war ‘and we’re losing,’ says deputy FM Elkin

By Times of Israel staff January 18, 2014, 10:41 pm


Tzipi Livni visits the West Bank settlement of Gvaot in Gush Etzion, December 19, 2012. (photo credit: Lior Mizrahi/Flash90)



If Israeli-Palestinian peace talks fail, Israel will be subjected to international isolation similar to that which brought about the collapse of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, Israel’s Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who is leading Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinians, warned on Saturday.

“The world does not understand the settlements,” Livni said in a Channel 2 TV news interview. “The peace negotiations are the wall stopping the wave [of international boycott pressure]. If there is a crisis [in the talks, that wave] will crash through.”

Asked whether Israel would face the same kind of isolation as South Africa did, she replied, “Yes.” Because of the dangers, Livni said: “I’m screaming, ‘Wake Up!’ ”
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks resumed last July, but have made no clear progress. US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is brokering the talks, appears to have abandoned his goal of achieving a peace accord by April, and is instead said to be finalizing a more general “framework” accord, covering all key issues, as a basis for continuing the talks beyond April. A TV report on Friday said the Palestinians were likely to reject the framework deal, blame Israel for the failure, and launch a diplomatic and legal war against Israel in every possible international forum.
Livni added in the TV interview that she respected but disagreed with those who champion the Greater Land of Israel ideology and are committed to expanding West Bank settlements. “Don’t impose this isolation upon us,” she pleaded, adding that each announcement of new settlement plans, and every new building in an isolated settlement, “is another brick in the wall of isolation that is being built around us.”

Livni is the leader of the small center-left Hatnua party in the coalition. Most Knesset members in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud-Beytenu alliance, along with the nationalist-Orthodox Jewish Home party, are committed to expanding settlements. Jewish Home’s leaders also want to annex substantial parts of the West Bank. The government last week announced plans to build 1,400 new homes in East Jerusalem and West Bank settlements, prompting criticism from the US and Europe. Several Israeli ambassadors in Europe were summoned by their host countries in protest at the new building plans last week, prompting Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman to summon those countries’ ambassadors in Israel, in turn, to rebut the criticisms.


EU Ambassador to Israel Lars Faaborg-Andersen (photo credit: Yossi Zwecker)

The European Union’s Ambassador to Israel, Lars Faaborg-Anderson, told Channel 2 that “if the settlement business continues to expand, Israel will be facing increasing isolation.”
And Britain’s Ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, said only a last-minute compromise over the Horizon 2020 multimillion euro scientific cooperation project prevented “a big rift between British and European science, and Israeli science, and that would have been a tragedy.” Gould said Israel is “losing support” internationally, and “I worry that in five years Israel will wake up and find that it doesn’t have enough friends.”
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin (photo credit: AP/Dan Balilty)

Attorney Daniel Reisner, of the leading Tel Aviv law firm Herzog, Fox & Neeman, told the program that Israeli businesses were turning to him in increasing numbers because of cancelled contracts, conflicts with international boards, lost investments and all kinds of other boycott-style pressures stemming from international opposition to Israel’s presence in the West Bank and settlement policies.
Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin (Likud) described the struggle as “a propaganda war” that “we’re certainly losing” at present. Elkin, a strong supporter of settlement expansion, added, “If we lose, it will cost us.”



Read more: Livni: We face South Africa-style isolation because of settlements | The Times of Israel http://www.timesofisrael.com/livni-...olation-because-of-settlements/#ixzz2quHhFWUj

 

[VDKMS]

I should not even bother answering this as like everything else you have posted in the last two years or so it has all be disproven before How many times have you been told what they are called is of no consequence. There were no Israelis before 1948, but there were Palestinians in the 5th century BCE because there was a place called Palestine and the people who live in Palestine are by default Palestinians. You can't "create" a state, country or homeland by driving the majority of the population off their own land and stealing both their land and possessions and killing those who resist the illegal takeover. That is NOT helping anyone except the Israelis.

OMG your evidence again: it has all be disproven before.
A "Palestine" in 5th century BCE??? Tell me, what was its capital and who ruled it? I want names!

In 5th century BC, 459 BC to be exactly, the Jewish priest Ezra assembles and leads a band of approximately 5,000 Jews from Babylon to Jerusalem (Wikipedia)
In 445 BC Nehemiah, the Jewish cup-bearer to Artaxerxes I at Susa, is given permission by Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem as governor of Judea, in order to rebuild parts of it. (Wikipedia)
From 626 BC to 539 BC there was the Neo-Babylonian Empire and after that the Achaemenid Empire. "Palestine"?????????

All of which has been shown to be Hasbara with at least three good reasons as to why it is a lie
(1) Evidence given by B'tselem et al, in their submission to the Israeli High Court when appying for a greater punishment for the sh!tbags who fired the steel projectile through the victim's foot in which they stated.
Quote:
Last September Abu Rahmeh , from the village of Bil’in, scene of weekly protests against the Israeli wall, sustained critical wounds in his leg and was left to bleed for some time until the soldiers allowed an ambulance to take to a nearby hospital in the central West Bank city of Ramallah. I doubt that B'tselem would send false evidence to the highest Court in the land in support of their case. If they did, the IDF would soon have had the High court reject their submission.
(2) Evidence given by Israeli doctors showing that these steel projectiles can penetrate the skull and break bones at ranges of over 40 metres.
(3) Video evidence clearly showing the exit hole.
(3a)The victim was under dures because of a death threat issued by the members of the IDF.

????????????? September??????????? Your video is from July 7, YOU must know that because you posted it yourself here.The september event and the july event cannot be the same! I see that you did not quote my B'tselem link! Why do you ignore that and instead post something from september?????

A statement on BTselem's website said Abu Rahma stated that the bullet hit his left toe.
The Israeli army admitted one of its soldiers had fired the shot and called the incident "a stark violation" of its rules of conduct.
"The injury was sustained when an IDF [Israeli army] soldier fired an anti-riot weapon in close proximity to the detained Palestinian man, who had been arrested for taking part in a violent riot," the statement said.
The army said it would investigate the incident.
The rights group said the incident took place on July 7, in the village of Nilin in the West Bank and had been filmed by a fourteen-year-old Palestinian girl in Nilin.​

Now stop making a fool of yourself.

Whereas all you give is links to hasbara issued to papers by the Israeli Hasbara Department, without any backing evidence, no video not even a photo.

You just don't get it, do you? You are so fixed on that "hole" in his shoe and a white stripe you call blood. How many people are walking around with a hole in their shoe? Are they all have been shot? Ever wondered that the sides of the "hole" go inside the shoe and not outwards? You messed up and are to stubborn to acknowledge it. You will sink deeper and deeper in the grave you are digging for yourself. I don't need a photo nor a video. When the victim himself says it and is comfirmed by B'tselem then that will do.

It does not prove a thing. All you have shown was that he was still alive at that point where for some reason the footage just stops dead.
You give no answer as to why the Israelis have been unable to ever find the boy since this event, and when after lying about the wrong person being buried they were given permission to exhume the body to verify who it was, they suddenly changed their mind. More lies

The maker of the film said at the end of the film that was broadcast all over the world that the child was dead! Pressed to release the uncut version he said it was to horrible to be shown, that's why he cut it out. Unfortunately for him the French court ordered the uncut video to be shown. The horrible thing was that after he said the child was dead he lifted his arm and looked at the camera. PALLYWOOD!

B'tselem disagree as in the quote above. "sustained critical wounds in his leg and was left to bleed for some time until the soldiers allowed an ambulance to take to a nearby hospital in the central West Bank city of Ramallah."

That was from the september event , not the one on july the 7th.

[/INDENT][/I]A great example of the lengths you will go to, to avoid the truth. "Shotgun injuries???? WTF has this to do with the subject? More totally unrelated "padding" Absolutely nothing to do with the case whatsoever. Shotguns fire an ounce and a quarter of lead pellets at far higher velocity. We are talking about a cylindrical piece of steel lightly coated in rubber or plastic at approximately 1/6th the velocity but still high enough to break bones and penetrate the skull.

But cannot penetrade a toe from 1.5 meters distance???????

Regarding your alleged clean round hole theory, you show your complete ignorance, the damage done is completely dependent on the projectile, it's velocity and the material that it penetrates, we have rubber conveyor belt as part of the backstop at our local shooting range, a large calibre wadcutter round (Very similar in shape to an Israeli rubber coated steel projectile) punches out a relatively clean round hole a mm or two smaller than the projectile itself, holes from FMJ rounds can be barely seen.I'd suggest that you are reading too many cowboy books or your Hasbara controllers are just feeding you trash.

Not from a foot full of bones.

How odd, because when my dad was in PALESTINE at the end of WW2 the locals were called and known as PALESTINIANS. He was asked if he would like to join the PALESTINE police.

A short history of the PALESTINE POLICE.

The life span of the Palestine Police Force is brief when set against the long history of Palestine but is vivid and vibrant in the memories of those who served in that beautiful country.

On 9th. December, 1917 Jerusalem surrendered to British and Commonwealth Forces under the command of Sir H.H. Allenby, G.C.B.,G.C.M.G., and on the 11th December, 1917 Allenby entered Jerusalem by way of the Jaffa Gate. By November, 1918 the First World War had finished with the defeat of Germany and her allies, including Turkey, and the whole of Palestine had been conquered. The question of administering the conquered territory now arose.

Policing Jerusalem at first, fell to the Assistant Provost Marshall who was assisted by the Military Police. The A.P.M.'s Headquarters was set up in the compound of the Russian Buildings, later to become Police Headquarters, along the Jaffa Road.

Initially, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (O.E.T.A.) was established and Palestine fell within the District known as O.E.T.A. (South).

With the formation of a Civil Government on 1st. July, 1920 the Palestine Police Force was born.

The first Police Commander was Lt. Col. P.B. Bramley, O.B.E., with the title of Director of Public Security and with the rank of Commandant of Police and Prisons. The police establishment at this time was 18 British Officers supported by 55 Palestinian Officers and 1,144 rank and file. The duties of the Police were described as:-

"Besides fulfilling the ordinary duties of a constabulary, such as the preservation of law and order and the prevention and detection of crime, act as their numbers will allow as escorts for the protection of tax collectors, serve summonses issued by the judicial authorities, distribute Government notices and escort Government treasure throughout the country."

How odd that there was no state known as PALESTINE yet there was a PALESTINE police force policing a country that didn't exist???

That was not "Palestine" as the "Palestinians" of today wants, it was the "Palestine Mandate" and was ruled by the British, not the Arabs nor the Jews. The local people called themselves Arabs. None of the yearly published documents by the mandate mention "Palestinians". They talk about Jews and Arabs. The name "Palestine" (most written differently according to the era) can be Greek (Philistines), Roman (Syria Palaestina) , British (Palestine Mandate) and Muslim Arab (Palestinian National Authority)

 

[VDKMS]

I think to be fair we now have two sides being deliberately obtuse, VD is correct in the statement that there was no "nation" of Palestine however everyone else is correct in the understanding that Palestine is a geographical region and has been known as such for about 3500 years.

Palestinians were not "invented" by Arafat, Palestinians are anyone living in the region of Palestine it is quite simply really.

The Palestinian government and police forces were simply administration groups for the region of Palestine.

What these institutions show in my opinion is that British intent was for the formation of a country called Palestine as was required by international law and the Palestine mandate and had it not been for war weariness and Zionist terrorism that is the country we would have had today.

The Palestine Mandate sole purpose was the reconstruction of a Jewish homeland. Nowhere does it say that it must be called "Palestine". The first thing the British did was seperate the land that was intended for the Arabs (Transjordan). The troubles did not start with the Zionists, it started with Muslim clerics, Haj Amin al-Husseini was no1. The local population didn't mind living in a Jewish state but preferred to be annexed to Syria, which was not possible because it belonged to the French mandate and an annexation to Transjordan was refused by the British.

About Seno's "Jerusalem in 1896" clip. That was not called Palestine at that time. It was Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, a subdivision of Syria which was earlier called Eyalet of Damascus. The reporter called it "Palestine" to let the viewer know where it is situated. If he would have named it Syria the viewer would be confused as Jerusalem today is not in Syria.
BTW, there were no sound movies in 1896.

I really think the argument has become overly complicated...
1) It has been proven genetically that the bulk of Israeli's do not have roots going back to the holy land.

Only maternal not paternal.

2) It is obvious that with the disolution of the Ottoman Empire Palestine was under international law meant to get self determination.

No, the Palestine Mandate sole purpose was the recreation of a Jewish homeland. Transjordan for the Arabs the rest for the Jews. Tha'ts why the Jews were prohibited to settle in Transjordan and Arabs, outside of the rest of the Palestine Mandate, were prohibited to settle in the future homeland of the Jews.

3) It was clear from British actions that it was meant to be one nation and anything less than that was a breech of its governing laws.

Like I said before, the Palestine Mandate sole purpose was the recreation of a Jewish homeland and no governing laws were breeched.

4) The Balfour document is an irrelevant document as Britain can not give away what is not theirs.

The Palestine Mandate document is very clear about this:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers,​

BTW the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 is the Balfour Declaration 1917.

5) 99% of the problem was the influx of zionists from 1920 on.

The problem were Islamic fanatics, under the leadership of muslim clerics, who had no problems killing muslim Arabs who did not agree with them.

Less Risk Means More Foreign Cash Driving Stocks: Israel Markets

from the article:

The shift in sentiment means the money coming into Israeli companies is the most since before the wave of revolutions gripped the Arab world. While car bombs explode in neighboring Lebanon and civil war drags on in Syria, improving Israeli finances with a narrowing budget deficit and declining debt may keep that trend going this year.​

Net non-resident purchases of shares traded in Tel Aviv in January through November 2013 increased to about $1.4 billion from $413 million for all of 2012​

Foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of last year, including mergers and acquisitions, rose to $10.5 billion last year​

Rising foreign investment in Israel comes even as pro-Palestinian activists intensify a campaign to promote boycotts, disinvestments and sanctions directed at Israeli institutions and companies, especially those connected to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.​

Israeli Finance Minister Yair Lapid said last month that the failure of peace negotiations could lead to sanctions that “would likely be extremely destructive to the economic welfare of each and very Israeli citizen.”

Economic analysts are less concerned, saying while they could adversely affect some individual companies, the overall economic impact will be minimal.​

 

[senojekips]

I note that it is taking longer and longer for you to answer, what are your Hasbara controllers overworked

OMG your evidence again: it has all be disproven before.

Yes, it has, and I'm pleased to see that you are well aware of it, read what you said and read my answer. Also the Mandate for Palestine nor any other document makes a mention of a prior Palestinian sovereign state being a condition of consideration in the formation of the new Palestinian state or ownership of the land.

Now YOU stop making a fool of yourself.

Your constant re circulation of previously disproved lies is a good indicator of you complete lack of willingness to accept the truth. Coupled with the fact that your info all stems from an official Israeli government Hasbara department... The formation of which is totally unknown even in the most corrupt countries on earth. Why would that be now?

You just don't get it, do you? You are so fixed on that "hole" in his shoe and a white stripe you call blood. How many people are walking around with a hole in their shoe? Are they all have been shot? Ever wondered that the sides of the "hole" go inside the shoe and not outwards? You messed up and are to stubborn to acknowledge it. You will sink deeper and deeper in the grave you are digging for yourself. I don't need a photo nor a video. When the victim himself says it and is comfirmed by B'tselem then that will do.

Yes,... I am fixed on that "hole",... because it just happens by a strange coincidence to be in the sole of a shoe on the same foot in which the victim was just shot with a 15gm steel projectile. A projectile that is well documented by Israeli doctors as being able to penetrate the skull and break bones when fired at ranges of 40 metres and more.

Very very few people walk around with a hole in their shoe especially one of the size that closely matches the size of an Israeli steel projectile, and even less of them have a liquid leaking out of it. What is your next fairy story. Please post a clip showing that the "sides of the hole go inside the shoe". Another lie similar to your miraculous diagnosis that the foot inside it was unharmed. I notice that you still have not posted the clip showing this and your explanation as to how you formed this opinion from it. Admit the truth, you just made it up to suit your story. As someone who claimed to have viewed the video "Frame by frame" and yet never even saw the hole, you suddenly have this fantastic ability to tell us every small detail about it. Please post a copy of Frame 633 which you allege shows an uninjured foot.

I have video and still evidence supporting me in all my explanations, all you have are your own totally unsupported "miracle diagnoses" none of which are supported by the visible evidence.

Only a few days ago you stated that this wound never even occurred. You also stated that Rameh was not a protester

That guy was not "a Palestinian protester"

A deliberate lie verified several times in the ensuing court case.

the way the soldier holds the weapon when fired he can impossible hit the "demonstrator's" foot

(another deliberate lie that you made up on the spur of the moment) There was no mention of this miraculous "Blistered Toe" Now that the exit hole has been clearly shown you have changed your story to a "blistered toe". Either way, the whole incident is further compounded by the fact that the victim had been shot in the leg and left to bleed by the IDF on a previous occasion. The video definitely shows the victim sustaining far more than a "Blistered toe"

Not from a foot full of bones.

Please explain how you arrive at your new "miraculous" diagnosis that this cannot happen when the video evidence backed by the findings of Israeli doctors very familiar with these injuries clearly shows that it can. The bones in the foot, particularly the metatarsals and phalanges are little heavier than the their equivalent bones in the fingers where this projectile exited.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, I have not forgotten that although you have tried hard to divert the subject from my original Post. We in Australia do not treat the Aboriginals as the Israeli occupiers treat the Palestinians. We don't use the Army, live ammunition, rubber coated steel projectiles nor do we deliberately aim tear gas projectiles at the faces of protestors and camera men. Your fellow IDF heroes are the scum of the earth, truly deserving of the sobriquet "The Middle Eastern Nazis" as seen below.

IDF deliberate breaking the arms of Palestinians

Wa'al Jawda could have become a Palestinian icon for the first intifada. He and his cousin Usama Jawda were filmed, from a distance, being brutally beaten by four Israeli soldiers on a Friday afternoon in late February 1988. The footage, which lasts nearly half an hour, has never been broadcast in full, but just a few minutes were enough to send an entire nation reeling and to provoke furious reactions from all over the world. It was a hitherto unknown spectacle. Sheer savagery. The images broadcast that same evening on Israel's main television news program, "Yoman," brought the violence occurring in the territories sharply into the Israeli public's consciousness.
The head of the Israel Broadcasting Authority at the time, Uri Porat, previewed the tape and ordered that it not be aired in its entirety. Porat was later quoted as saying that after viewing the footage he consulted with news department director Yair Stern and "Yoman" editor Yael Chen, and that they had decided there were "horrors that needn't be broadcast on television."

 

[VDKMS]

I note that it is taking longer and longer for you to answer, what are your Hasbara controllers overworked

I don't mind. The more I say the more truth is revealed.

Yes, it has, and I'm pleased to see that you are well aware of it, read what you said and read my answer. Also the Mandate for Palestine nor any other document makes a mention of a prior Palestinian sovereign state being a condition of consideration in the formation of the new Palestinian state or ownership of the land.

The Mandate has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state. The Arabs got Transjordan and the Jews what they have now (west bank and gaza was also part of the original Jewish Homeland)

Now YOU stop making a fool of yourself.

Your constant re circulation of previously disproved lies is a good indicator of you complete lack of willingness to accept the truth. Coupled with the fact that your info all stems from an official Israeli government Hasbara department... The formation of which is totally unknown even in the most corrupt countries on earth. Why would that be now?

I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews. I base my opinions on common sense, facts and rule of law.

Yes,... I am fixed on that "hole",... because it just happens by a strange coincidence to be in the sole of a shoe on the same foot in which the victim was just shot with a 15gm steel projectile. A projectile that is well documented by Israeli doctors as being able to penetrate the skull and break bones when fired at ranges of 40 metres and more.

Very very few people walk around with a hole in their shoe especially one of the size that closely matches the size of an Israeli steel projectile, and even less of them have a liquid leaking out of it. What is your next fairy story. Please post a clip showing that the "sides of the hole go inside the shoe". Another lie similar to your miraculous diagnosis that the foot inside it was unharmed. I notice that you still have not posted the clip showing this and your explanation as to how you formed this opinion from it. Admit the truth, you just made it up to suit your story. As someone who claimed to have viewed the video "Frame by frame" and yet never even saw the hole, you suddenly have this fantastic ability to tell us every small detail about it. Please post a copy of Frame 633 which you allege shows an uninjured foot.

I have video and still evidence supporting me in all my explanations, all you have are your own totally unsupported "miracle diagnoses" none of which are supported by the visible evidence.

You go to court with your video, telling the judge that the victim is shot trough the foot with a steel bullet. You say you can show the evidence with your videoclip. I go to the court, with the victim and B'Tselem and the victim declares to the judge that all he had was a blister on his toe and B'Tselem comfirmed it. Who do you think the judge will believe? When you say the victim is shot trough the foot and the victim declares it was a blister then it was a blister!

Why do you ignore the B'Tselem article? Why didn't you include it in this quote? Why do you ignore that you allocate the same video to an event in july and september?

Only a few days ago you stated that this wound never even occurred. You also stated that Rameh was not a protester A deliberate lie verified several times in the ensuing court case. (another deliberate lie that you made up on the spur of the moment) There was no mention of this miraculous "Blistered Toe" Now that the exit hole has been clearly shown you have changed your story to a "blistered toe". Either way, the whole incident is further compounded by the fact that the victim had been shot in the leg and left to bleed by the IDF on a previous occasion. The video definitely shows the victim sustaining far more than a "Blistered toe"

Please explain how you arrive at your new "miraculous" diagnosis that this cannot happen when the video evidence backed by the findings of Israeli doctors very familiar with these injuries clearly shows that it can. The bones in the foot, particularly the metatarsals and phalanges are little heavier than the their equivalent bones in the fingers where this projectile exited.

Seems history repeats itself. As with the al durah incident the Ashraf Abu Rahma "shooting" video is not the complete video. Is was also edited. For example, the pictures of the dust cloud generated by the hit of the bullet were cut. Also cut was the talking of the family members who videotaped the event, which was a rock throwing event. (in every country when you throw a rock at the police or soldiers you get arrested). This was part of the conversation:

An elder woman asks: “Who hit the second one?” and Salam answers: “The soldier who is besides the soldier that shot”, meaning Lt. Col. Borberg. A few seconds later, Salam says: “I wish you have seen how the soldier was beaten”. A male, probably her brother Ghaleb, asks her: “Did you record it?” and Salam replies: “Yes” and says that the pictures were good. Then the male says: “We’ll watch it on the camera” and asks Salam who hit the soldier. Salam explains again that “The second soldier arrived and hit him, the guy who had no barrette hit the soldier who shot.”​

Abu Rahama testified in court that he was injured in his right side of his left toe, (there goes your story!) something Physician Nahum Shahaf determined unequivocally in his official affidavit that this could not have been the case because geometric analysis of the ricochet’s trajectory as spotted in several frames and the angel of the gun barrel. The convergence of both angels indicates that rubber bullet hit the sidewalk about six meters behind the Palestinian detainee and in a distance of about 30 to 40 centimeters from his left side of his body. Abu Rahma was standing at the time of the shooting on the road and the bullet hit the sidewalk which is higher than the road by about 15 centimeters. These facts exclude any possibility that Abu Rahama could have been injured in his right side of his left toe, as he claimed just after the shooting and testified in court.

You can find the full text of the High Court decision here.

 

[MontyB]

I don't mind. The more I say the more truth is revealed.

Which would be why you have garnered so much support in this thread for the Israeli case, oh wait even the Israelis we had have buggered off and left you to it.

The Mandate has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state. The Arabs got Transjordan and the Jews what they have now (west bank and gaza was also part of the original Jewish Homeland)

Not true at all, even if you could argue that the British had any right to make a Jewish state that state has no right to any land beyond its declared borders everything else is occupied and with specific regards to the West Bank well even the Israeli High Court conceeds it is occupied, I would suggest that you look up case # 2056/04--Beit Zourik V Israel.

Also given that Egypt never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and that the international community did not recognize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem further disproves this Israeli claims that it has a right to the West Bank. This position on the part of the international community is based solely on the fact that the sovereignty over those territories belongs to the Palestinian people, the existence and rights of which are well recognized.

In fact, the Israeli argument opens the door for the proper legal position that the Geneva Convention is applicable to all the territories allocated to the Arab State in U.N. resolution 181 (II) of 1947 and occupied by Israel. That is - the Convention is applicable not only to those territories occupied by Israel in 1967, but also to the territory lying between the border of the Jewish state, as specified in the resolution, and the Armistice lines of 1949, which was occupied by Israel in the war of 1948. The basic difference is that the international community has not expressed its position with regard to the legal status of those territories occupied in 1948 and has only established and reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including Jerusalem.

I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews. I base my opinions on common sense, facts and rule of law.

Yes and I am really the pope.
If what you say is even remotely true you would have grasped by now that neither International law nor Israeli law supports the idea that the West Bank is anything but occupied Palestinian land.

There is a clear international consensus on the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the rest of the occupied Arab territories (the U.S. position was diluted, at a later stage, to one considering settlements as an "obstacle to peace" and as "detrimental to the peace process").

Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention is very specific in its reference to settlers or civilians of the occupying Power and states explicitly that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. "This article prohibits settlements in broad and unequivocal terms without regard to the purported purposes of the settlements and was created specifically to prevent the colonization that inevitably ensues with such population transfers. The ICRC Commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention reaffirms that "Article 49 (6) is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons, or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."

In an attempt to justify the building of settlements, Israel has for many years alleged that settlements were a security measure that served Israel's military needs. While this argument proved false, it seemed to be put forward in order to reduce international pressure and to evade application of the Hague Convention.

It was only later that the Israeli Government began to put forward its political position based on an expansionist ideology, most notably the concept of the "land of Israel" or "Greater Israel." This clearly confirmed the colonialist nature of the settlement drive and the Israeli aim of annexing the land. The entire scope of the Israeli positions on settlements, from the past to the present, has been vehemently rejected by the international community.

So what irrelevant crap are you going to post to counter this?

Oh and just to make certain you understand the UN's views on the matter of whether the West Bank is occupied or not...


New York, 20 January 2014 - Secretary-General's remarks to Security Council
open debate on the Situation in the Middle East
[I have chopped out the bits on Lebanon, Syria and Iran as they are irrelevant to this discussion and pushed me over the 10,000 character limit]

2014 will be a decisive year to help Israelis and Palestinians draw back from a perilous and unsustainable status quo.

US Secretary of State Kerry has worked diligently to lay out a framework on all core issues to address Israeli and Palestinian aspirations in a fair and balanced manner and to allow for continued negotiations towards a final status agreement.

I also pay special tribute to Jordan for its essential role.
Israeli and Palestinian leaders will be required to make bold decisions and painful compromises for peace. They must prepare their peoples for these necessary steps.

The failure of political progress could fuel a downward spiral on the ground. I am alarmed by recurrent violence and incitement from all sides, as well as continued settlement activity which is illegal under international law.

Building settlements is not consistent with building a long-lasting peace agreement.

Both parties must act responsibly and with restraint. Gaza also remains a cause for concern. Ultimately, a sustainable two-state solution requires Palestinians to overcome their divisions.

UNRWA will begin 2014 with an expected end-of-year shortfall of $67 million under its Regular Budget. I encourage all Member States to explore ways to strengthen their cooperation with UNRWA and provide additional funding, in particular, to its regular budget.

I hope that the parties will reach a framework understanding. It must be fair, and consistent with principles on all core issues outlined in UN Security Council resolutions, the Madrid principles -- including land for peace -- the Road Map and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.

Palestinians must be able to realize their legitimate aspirations to statehood, self-determination, dignity, and freedom, including an end to the occupation that began in 1967 with a just solution to the plight of refugees, and a resolution of the status of Jerusalem.

Israelis must be able to live in peace and security, within a recognized border, paving the way for their increasing integration in a stable and secure region.

The realization of the Arab Peace Initiative will yield socioeconomic, trade, and security benefits for all the peoples of the Middle East.

For Palestinians a comprehensive peace settlement holds the promise of becoming a fully recognized Member State of equal standing. There is no substitute for negotiations to achieve this end.

Only then can the United Nations relationship with Palestine truly transform to fully implementing and completing the Palestinian state-building agenda.

For Israel, too, only a negotiated solution will bring security and recognition in the region and beyond. Israel would be in a position to reap the full benefits of all forms of cooperation within the United Nations system. The UN and its members will in turn greatly benefit from what Israel has to offer.

I do not underestimate the difficulties, but the risks of inaction or surrender are far greater. We face possibly the last attempt to salvage the two-state solution. Quite simply, this is too important to fail.

My message to President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu is clear:

If you are prepared to take the bold decisions required, I will push ahead on the positive agenda of peace dividends for both sides and ensure the United Nations works towards realizing the legitimate aspirations of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples within the framework of a comprehensive regional settlement. We must make the most of the prospect that Secretary Kerry has unlocked to see the creation of two states living side-by-side in peace and security that their peoples so desperately desire and deserve.

Thank you.

So I assume you will be backing the Palestinians now that:
1) International Law supports their case.
2) The UN made up of those more capable of interpreting international law than you or I support the Palestinian case.
3) Israels High Court supports the Palestinian case.

I would now argue that IF you were genuinely about and I quote you here "

I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews. I base my opinions on common sense, facts and rule of law.

You would if nothing else have to admit that the West Bank is occupied territory and as such settlements are illegal.

The call is yours, you can retract your comment and admit to being an Israeli shill and carry on hawking what is fast becoming an international pariah state or you can join the side of right and assist in finding a solution to this mess.

My money is on a lot of if's, but's and hand ringing but as we all know a leopard cant change its spots.

 

[senojekips]

I don't mind. The more I say the more truth is revealed.

But only because your lies are so childishly simple to disprove.

The Mandate has nothing to do with a future Palestinian state. The Arabs got Transjordan and the Jews what they have now (west bank and gaza was also part of the original Jewish Homeland)

The mandate states clearly that the Brits were to administer it until such time as the Palestinians could take over. Already disproved a number of times.

I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews. I base my opinions on common sense, facts and rule of law.

Liar! You are an Israeli Shill.

You go to court with your video, telling the judge that the victim is shot trough the foot with a steel bullet. You say you can show the evidence with your videoclip. I go to the court, with the victim and B'Tselem and the victim declares to the judge that all he had was a blister on his toe and B'Tselem comfirmed it.

The video evidence without a doubt. People can lie and be misled Video shows what actually happened.

Seems history repeats itself. As with the al durah incident the Ashraf Abu Rahma "shooting" video is not the complete video. Is was also edited. For example, the pictures of the dust cloud generated by the hit of the bullet were cut. Also cut was the talking of the family members who videotaped the event, which was a rock throwing event. (in every country when you throw a rock at the police or soldiers you get arrested). This was part of the conversation:

An elder woman asks: “Who hit the second one?” and Salam answers: “The soldier who is besides the soldier that shot”, meaning Lt. Col. Borberg. A few seconds later, Salam says: “I wish you have seen how the soldier was beaten”. A male, probably her brother Ghaleb, asks her: “Did you record it?” and Salam replies: “Yes” and says that the pictures were good. Then the male says: “We’ll watch it on the camera” and asks Salam who hit the soldier. Salam explains again that “The second soldier arrived and hit him, the guy who had no barrette hit the soldier who shot.”

If this is so you'd better post the "uncut" video. otherwise it is just more lies you are in the habit of making up. All "padding" of no relevance whatsoever, and with your past record of making things up, who would believe this? As a person who also declares "I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews" I find it hard to believe you know this,... I'd say that you are Lying again,... still.

You still haven't posted the explanations of your sudden flush of evidence regarding the uninjured foot along with the famous frame "633"

Nor have you explained how your knowledge of projectile injuries is better than a study of over 500 injuries by these steel projectiles as completed by Israeli doctors.

Nor have you posted evidence showing the exit hole in the shoe are pushed inwards. You are without doubt a pathological liar and the more this goes on the more you are eager to demonstrate that fact

Abu Rahama testified in court that he was injured in his right side of his left toe, (there goes your story!) something Physician Nahum Shahaf determined unequivocally in his official affidavit that this could not have been the case because geometric analysis of the ricochet’s trajectory as spotted in several frames and the angel of the gun barrel. The convergence of both angels indicates that rubber bullet hit the sidewalk about six meters behind the Palestinian detainee and in a distance of about 30 to 40 centimeters from his left side of his body.

Well,.... You'd better make up your mind, either the projectile hit the footpath 6 metres away which makes a lie of your "Blistered Toe " statement or he was hit in the foot which makes a lie of your statement above. You can't have it both ways.

 

[senojekips]

Why do people hate Israel? Here is a clue.

Fortunately many non Zionist Jews are waking up, as we see above.

 

[VDKMS]

Which would be why you have garnered so much support in this thread for the Israeli case, oh wait even the Israelis we had have buggered off and left you to it.

Yeah, that's where you're good at, scare people away by insulting them, although I admit that your Auatralian friend is far worse with his insults. I sometimes wonder why he is still allowed to post such language because this is in violation of the forum rules.

Not true at all, even if you could argue that the British had any right to make a Jewish state that state has no right to any land beyond its declared borders everything else is occupied and with specific regards to the West Bank well even the Israeli High Court conceeds it is occupied, I would suggest that you look up case # 2056/04--Beit Zourik V Israel.

We are talking about the Mandate here, not the parttition plan, which did not come from the mandate but from the UN (Resolution 181, which also terminated the mandate, is about and Arab and a Jewish state). About the borders: they were well defined in Res.181. One problem though, one of the Jewish state's border was, and I quote from the res 181:

"The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State."​

.
But the Arabs refused their part meaning there is no eastern border of the Jewish state because there is no Arab one.

Also given that Egypt never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and that the international community did not recognize Jordanian sovereignty over the West Bank and Jerusalem further disproves this Israeli claims that it has a right to the West Bank. This position on the part of the international community is based solely on the fact that the sovereignty over those territories belongs to the Palestinian people, the existence and rights of which are well recognized.

Not true. Up untill today there is no official Arab state in the West bank and the eastern border of Israel borders an Arab state that isn't there. A good lawyer can win the case for Israel to put the borders to Jordan. The Arabs made a tremendous mistake by refusing their part. Up until today there is no sovereignity given to the Palestinians nor territories that belong to them.

In fact, the Israeli argument opens the door for the proper legal position that the Geneva Convention is applicable to all the territories allocated to the Arab State in U.N. resolution 181 (II) of 1947 and occupied by Israel. That is - the Convention is applicable not only to those territories occupied by Israel in 1967, but also to the territory lying between the border of the Jewish state, as specified in the resolution, and the Armistice lines of 1949, which was occupied by Israel in the war of 1948. The basic difference is that the international community has not expressed its position with regard to the legal status of those territories occupied in 1948 and has only established and reaffirmed the applicability of the Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, including Jerusalem.

The Arabs refused their part of the deal and violated international laws by attacking a newly founded state mentioned in resolution 181. An armistice line is not an official border. The "Palestinians" agreed to an Israeli presence in the Judea/Samaria area in the Oslo II accords of 1995.
There are two ways: either the Oslo accords are valid and then there is no occupation or the Oslo accords are invalid (with supporters both in Israel and the PA) and then the territories allocated to the PA are illegal and Israel has a legal occupation because of a defensive war.

Yes and I am really the pope.
If what you say is even remotely true you would have grasped by now that neither International law nor Israeli law supports the idea that the West Bank is anything but occupied Palestinian land.

See my former remark.

There is a clear international consensus on the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Jerusalem, and the rest of the occupied Arab territories (the U.S. position was diluted, at a later stage, to one considering settlements as an "obstacle to peace" and as "detrimental to the peace process").

It is not because there is an international concensus that it becomes legal/illegal. International law decides what's legal or illegal and there are laws to which an "occupying" country has to abide by. Like:

Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a " territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.​

Judea/Samaria has civilian rule. There's also talk of "dealing with local authorities". When Israel elimiated the Jordanian occupation there were no local authorities to talk to because it used to be in the hands of Jordan and before that there were none because the British had left and the Arabs refused their part.

Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention is very specific in its reference to settlers or civilians of the occupying Power and states explicitly that "the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. "This article prohibits settlements in broad and unequivocal terms without regard to the purported purposes of the settlements and was created specifically to prevent the colonization that inevitably ensues with such population transfers. The ICRC Commentary on the 4th Geneva Convention reaffirms that "Article 49 (6) is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons, or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."

Israel complies to that. No Jew or Arab is force to live in the settlements. Stronger, the factories build there give work to about 20.000 "Palestinians" who get better paid than in the PA.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

"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."​

There is no mention of settlements in art 49 of the fourth Geneva comvention.

In an attempt to justify the building of settlements, Israel has for many years alleged that settlements were a security measure that served Israel's military needs. While this argument proved false, it seemed to be put forward in order to reduce international pressure and to evade application of the Hague Convention.

Wrong. The first settlements were an initiative from Israeli civilians with the approval of the government. Some of those settlements were build (rebuild) on former Jewish cities.

It was only later that the Israeli Government began to put forward its political position based on an expansionist ideology, most notably the concept of the "land of Israel" or "Greater Israel." This clearly confirmed the colonialist nature of the settlement drive and the Israeli aim of annexing the land. The entire scope of the Israeli positions on settlements, from the past to the present, has been vehemently rejected by the international community.

Nowhere in the British Mandate is there mention of giving Judea/Samaria to the Arabs, let alone to the "Palestinians". The UN gave Judea/Samaria to the Arabs but they refused!

read what Julius Stone, former Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney, has to say:

We would have to say that the effect of Article 49(6) is to impose an obligation on the State of Israel to ensure (by force if necessary) that these areas, despite their millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever judenrein. Irony would thus be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that ... the West Bank .. must be made judenrein​

So what irrelevant crap are you going to post to counter this?

My former answers are very clear about that.

Oh and just to make certain you understand the UN's views on the matter of whether the West Bank is occupied or not...[/COLOR]


New York, 20 January 2014 - Secretary-General's remarks to Security Council
open debate on the Situation in the Middle East
[I have chopped out the bits on Lebanon, Syria and Iran as they are irrelevant to this discussion and pushed me over the 10,000 character limit]

I have skipped the text, to read it go here.

This clearly shows the difference in thinking between you and me. What you quote is what the UN Secretary-General says. He is not a dictator and has no power to decide what is right and wrong. He too must comply with international law.
Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School:

The West Bank should be considered “unallocated territory,” once part of the Ottoman Empire. From this perspective, Israel, rather than simply “a belligerent occupant,” had the status of a “claimant to the territory.”​

 

[VDKMS]

Part two:
from the article "The Illegal-Settlements Myth"

"Concluding that Israeli settlements violate Article 49(6) also overlooks the Jewish communities that existed before the creation of the state in areas occupied by today’s Israeli settlements, for example, in Hebron and the Etzion bloc outside Jerusalem. These Jewish communities were destroyed by Arab armies, militias, and rioters, and, as in the case of Hebron, the community’s population was slaughtered. Is it sensible to interpret Article 49 to bar the reconstitution of Jewish communities that were destroyed through aggression and slaughter? If so, the international law of occupation runs the risk of freezing one occupier’s conduct in place, no matter how unlawful".​

But only because your lies are so childishly simple to disprove.
The mandate states clearly that the Brits were to administer it until such time as the Palestinians could take over. Already disproved a number of times

You lied a number of times. Show me were the Mandate speaks about "Palestinians". None of the yearly documents from the Mandate mentions "Palestinians" once. So here's your chance: give me the link were the mandate speaks of "Palestinians". Not crap from anti-israel wepages but from the official Mandate documents with link.

Liar! You are an Israeli Shill.

Prove it!

The video evidence without a doubt. People can lie and be misled Video shows what actually happened.

really??

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJY2zK3O2CA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJY2zK3O2CA[/ame]

If this is so you'd better post the "uncut" video. otherwise it is just more lies you are in the habit of making up. All "padding" of no relevance whatsoever, and with your past record of making things up, who would believe this? As a person who also declares "I have no connection whatsoever with Israel or Jews" I find it hard to believe you know this,... I'd say that you are Lying again,... still.

The uncut video was shown in court and, to my knowledge, not yet posted on the internet.

You still haven't posted the explanations of your sudden flush of evidence regarding the uninjured foot along with the famous frame "633"

Nor have you explained how your knowledge of projectile injuries is better than a study of over 500 injuries by these steel projectiles as completed by Israeli doctors.

Nor have you posted evidence showing the exit hole in the shoe are pushed inwards. You are without doubt a pathological liar and the more this goes on the more you are eager to demonstrate that fact


Well,.... You'd better make up your mind, either the projectile hit the footpath 6 metres away which makes a lie of your "Blistered Toe " statement or he was hit in the foot which makes a lie of your statement above. You can't have it both ways.

Very simple. Let's look at the facts.
You show a hole in the shoe although the hole is not seen in every frame, but let's asume there is a hole, show me the moment were the hole was made, show me the impact of the bullet going through his foot. You cant. So the hole is either an optical illusion or it was there before the event.
Another fact, The person himself has testified before court that he had a blister on his toe. No mention whatsoever of a bullet going through his foot like you claim. Now who would know it better you think? You or the victim himself?