So why do people hate Israel?

[VDKMS]

No,.... so why do you present this as evidence that the Zionist occupation of Palestine is some how justified by this?

This is evidence that the Jewish refugees didn't get the same treatment as the Arab ones (there were no Palestinians at that time, the Egyptian immigrant Arafat was not there yet).

Bullsh!t,... Jewish occupation was never legal, in fact legally the state of Israel has never legally existed.

There was no Jewish occupation. The former country was gone. Ottoman empire defeated and abolished. Many new countries would arise, including a Jewish homeland.

The British administrators of PALESTINE (not Israel) were only able to recommend the setting up of a jewish homeland in the event that the Palestinians allowed it, which they did not.

From the mandate.

" the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"​

I already explained the meaning of Palestine, it has nothing to do with Arabs let alone "Palestinians".

There is no word of "Palestinians" in any document of the mandate. They talk about Arabs and Jews. Nowhere is stated that the reconstitution of the Jewish homeland depended on Arab approval. Besides, the Arabs immediately got their part, it was called Transjordan.

It was when the Zionists discovered that there was no legal way that they could have a homeland in Palestine that the Zionist terror groups attacked the legal Administration and drove them out, after which they attacked the Palestinians and drove them into neighbouring countries where they remain until this day.

Again you are talking BS.

The first attack reported in the mandate was this (1924):

"From the 21st July till the 19th August the Amir was absent from the territory on the pilgrimage to Mecca; his cousin, the Amir Shakir, acted in his place. On the 4th August a Transjordan band, in a raid into Syria, attacked a party of Syrian gendarmes who were escorting a party of French officers and ladies"​

The next reported attack was in 1929 (first attack on the Jews)

"15. Collective Punishments.--The Collective Punishments Ordinances were applied to the towns and villages whose inhabitants were guilty of participation in the concerted attacks on Jews at Hebron, Safad, Motza, Artuf, Beer Tuvia, and heavy fines were inflicted."​

The first attack on the British occured in 1936 (as of yet there were NO Jewish attacks on Arabs)

"A small party of British troops who were bathing near Beisan on the 12th August were subjected to a surprise attack by a large Arab armed band. Unfortunately their Lewis gun "jammed" and those who were on guard were killed by the band, who succeeded in capturing the Lewis gun and some rifles. "​

You cannot be an illegal immigrant into a land that is promised to you. Any Arabs were migrating to the promised Pan ARAB State as promised by the Brits. in 1917.

The promise was nullified by the Mandate. The Mandate prohibited Arab immigration onto land assigned to the Jews. The Arabs who crossed the border did so illegally no matter what was promised.

All of this has been previously covered and you know it, so let's get back to where we left off and you can explain your lies.

Yes I know it and I was right, supported by the facts.

 

[senojekips]

This is evidence that the Jewish refugees didn't get the same treatment as the Arab ones (there were no Palestinians at that time, the Egyptian immigrant Arafat was not there yet).

Neither they should as has been pointed out many times before. But there certainly were Palestinians at that time as recognised in the Mandate for PALESTINE.

There was no Jewish occupation. The former country was gone. Ottoman empire defeated and abolished. Many new countries would arise, including a Jewish homeland.

Well, what do we call the influx of undocumented (illegal) European Zionists who flooded and occupied Palestine after WWII?

From the mandate.
" the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"

I have a historical connection with several countries including Holland and England, but that does not give me the right to drive out the present legal owners at gunpoint and kill those who resist. This was one of the reasons why Israeli Jews realised that they had no claim to any part of Palestine, Or anywhere else for that matter.

I already explained the meaning of Palestine, it has nothing to do with Arabs let alone "Palestinians".

We've settled this matter many times previously, The inhabitants of Palestine are by default "Palestinians" end of story.

There is no word of "Palestinians" in any document of the mandate. They talk about Arabs and Jews.

Rubbish,...

Nowhere is stated that the reconstitution of the Jewish homeland depended on Arab approval.

IF, the formation of Israel was somehow made legal, Which it was not, it stated quite clearly.
"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, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".

Again you are talking BS.

The first attack reported in the mandate was this (1924):

As a result of the Arabs realising that the Zionists were trying to steal Palestinian lands

The promise was nullified by the Mandate. The Mandate prohibited Arab immigration onto land assigned to the Jews. The Arabs who crossed the border did so illegally no matter what was promised.

Yes I know it and I was right, supported by the facts.

You are a proven liar who will say anything to try to justify your point of view. Here is an example of those lies,

You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf

 

[VDKMS]

Neither they should as has been pointed out many times before. But there certainly were Palestinians at that time as recognised in the Mandate for PALESTINE.

The mandate did not talk about "Palestinians". They talked about jews and Arabs. This is a FACT.

Well, what do we call the influx of undocumented (illegal) European Zionists who flooded and occupied Palestine after WWII?

Israel was recognised as a souvereign state after WWII and they decided upon Jewish immigration, no one else. Before that it was the Palestine Mandate that decided that Jewish immigration was legal. Very few came illegally and the British didn't apply the rules as they should have been.

I have a historical connection with several countries including Holland and England, but that does not give me the right to drive out the present legal owners at gunpoint and kill those who resist. This was one of the reasons why Israeli Jews realised that they had no claim to any part of Palestine, Or anywhere else for that matter.

Your historical connection is not approved by the international community. The Jewish connection was. The Jews did not drive out the local population. They only started defending themselves after repeated attacks on them. Everyone has the right to defend himself.

We've settled this matter many times previously, The inhabitants of Palestine are by default "Palestinians" end of story.

Boy are you wrong. Palestine goes back to the Greek Philistines. The ones who call them now "Palestinians" are Arab. They hijacked the name for political reasons. Before Arafat they called themselves Arabs or Syrians. And that is a FACT.

Rubbish,...

It says Palestine not "Palestinians". Like I've said before. The "Palestinians" of today have nothing to do with Palestine as mentioned in the Mandate.

IF, the formation of Israel was somehow made legal, Which it was not, it stated quite clearly.
"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, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
As a result of the Arabs realising that the Zionists were trying to steal Palestinian lands

You have a short memory.

what you don't remember was that that sentence was taken over by the Jews themselves.

Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine. (3 - 2- 1919)
5.1. - ...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The same sentence was also taken over by the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq (August 29, 1919)
( Christians and Muslims did not want the Jews to take over their holy places)

As a result the local Arabs (NOT "Palestinians") knew that the Jews were not comming to steal their land.

You are a proven liar who will say anything to try to justify your point of view. Here is an example of those lies,

Still mad that I exposed your lie that he was shot through the thigh?

from your post #8 About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other info.

"There is obviously a third variety, as there is a video showing a blindfolded Palestinian detainee being deliberately shot through the thigh with a rubber bullet, the weapon has no muzzle adaptor."​

We all know he had a blister on his toe and it is not proven if the blister was caused by the rubber bullet.

 

[senojekips]

The mandate did not talk about "Palestinians". They talked about jews and Arabs. This is a FACT.

But it did talk about Palestine, andas I have pointed out many times the inhabitants of Palestine are by default, "Palestinians".

Israel was recognised as a souvereign state after WWII and they decided upon Jewish immigration, no one else. Before that it was the Palestine Mandate that decided that Jewish immigration was legal. Very few came illegally and the British didn't apply the rules as they should have been.

Due to the British immigration restrictions, the Jewish Agency Executive turned to illegal immigration. Over the next few years tens of thousands of Jews sailed towards Palestine in overcrowded vessels in a program known as Aliyah Bet, despite the almost certain knowledge that it would lead to incarceration in a British prison camp (most ships were intercepted). The overwhelming majority were European Jews, including many Holocaust survivors, although some North African Jews were also involved.

The Brits, as the legally appointed administrators banned Jewish migration to Palestine because of the inability of Palestine to absorb new immigrants. All arable land was already occupied hence the need for those illegal immigrants to drive the legal occupants out so they could steal their land and possessions.

Your historical connection is not approved by the international community. The Jewish connection was. The Jews did not drive out the local population. They only started defending themselves after repeated attacks on them. Everyone has the right to defend himself.

My connection does not need "approval" it is a fact, not only that it is a lot more recent than that of the Jews to Palestine. You are correct about people having the right to defend themselves, which is exactly what the Palestinians were doing resisting the illegal occupation of their land. There is now evidence that these Ashkenazi Jews never lived in Palestine at any time but are actually descendants of the Khazars. The Sephardim came fro Morocco and never ever lived anywhere near Palestine, so,... your whole argument is null and void. Jews have no historical connection to Palestine.[/quote]

Boy are you wrong. Palestine goes back to the Greek Philistines. The ones who call them now "Palestinians" are Arab. They hijacked the name for political reasons. Before Arafat they called themselves Arabs or Syrians. And that is a FACT.

That is 100% bullsh!t as pointed out earlier, the population of Palestine are by default Palestinians end of story

It says Palestine not "Palestinians". Like I've said before. The "Palestinians" of today have nothing to do with Palestine as mentioned in the Mandate.

Please post a credible link to prove this

You have a short memory.

what you don't remember was that that sentence was taken over by the Jews themselves.

Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine. (3 - 2- 1919)
5.1. - ...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The same sentence was also taken over by the Recommendations of the King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq (August 29, 1919)
( Christians and Muslims did not want the Jews to take over their holy places)

As a result the local Arabs (NOT "Palestinians") knew that the Jews were not comming to steal their land.

But they DID steal their land AND the Palestinians were well aware of what they were up to.

Still mad that I exposed your lie that he was shot through the thigh?

from your post #8 About Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other info.

"There is obviously a third variety, as there is a video showing a blindfolded Palestinian detainee being deliberately shot through the thigh with a rubber bullet, the weapon has no muzzle adaptor.​

We all know he had a blister on his toe and it is not proven if the blister was caused by the rubber bullet.[/quote]You never disproved anything. what has been shown was your pathetic attempt to lie your way out of the facts.[/quote] The Israelis made an answer for every eventuality. Some said a blistered toe, some said the projectile missed altogether (Nahum in his officially approved affidavit) there were also other lies the trouble being that they did not even agree among themselves, a sure sign of a cover up. Then of course there is the visible evidence showing the exit hole in the detainees shoe. The same shoe through which you state you can miraculously see the victims uninjured foot inside the shoe.

 

[VDKMS]

But it did talk about Palestine, andas I have pointed out many times the inhabitants of Palestine are by default, "Palestinians".

Palestine as the Holy Land. That's how it was remembered. Are you now going to call them Holly Landers?

Due to the British immigration restrictions, the Jewish Agency Executive turned to illegal immigration. Over the next few years tens of thousands of Jews sailed towards Palestine in overcrowded vessels in a program known as Aliyah Bet, despite the almost certain knowledge that it would lead to incarceration in a British prison camp (most ships were intercepted). The overwhelming majority were European Jews, including many Holocaust survivors, although some North African Jews were also involved.

Approximately 60.000 Jews were able to enter illegally between 1939 and 1946. 400.000 - 500.000 entered legally during the mandate. Many Jews who came illegally went from Nazi prison camps to British prison camps. Almost all Arab immigrants entered illegally. None went to prison camps. A gross violation of the mandate.

The Brits, as the legally appointed administrators banned Jewish migration to Palestine because of the inability of Palestine to absorb new immigrants. All arable land was already occupied hence the need for those illegal immigrants to drive the legal occupants out so they could steal their land and possessions.

Tell me why a land cannot absorb immigrants from one region but can from another?
You forget to mention that the Jews were able to make deserts and swamps into arable land, which the natives could not.
Jews did not drive out the natives. Their land was mostly owned by rich Arabs living outside of the region.

My connection does not need "approval" it is a fact, not only that it is a lot more recent than that of the Jews to Palestine. You are correct about people having the right to defend themselves, which is exactly what the Palestinians were doing resisting the illegal occupation of their land. There is now evidence that these Ashkenazi Jews never lived in Palestine at any time but are actually descendants of the Khazars. The Sephardim came fro Morocco and never ever lived anywhere near Palestine, so,... your whole argument is null and void. Jews have no historical connection to Palestine. That is 100% bullsh!t as pointed out earlier, the population of Palestine are by default Palestinians end of story

No one was attacking the natives. War was over. Their country (Ottoman Empire) was gone. It was the Islamists and Jihadist who started to attack only the Jews and not Arab immigrants who were also in need of a job and land. If they were right they would have attacked all the immigrants, which they didn't. They only attacked the Jews, including families that lived there longer than any Arab family did. It was a religious attack.
Why do you keep ignoring the facts? Name one capital of your "historical Palestine"! You can't because there never was one. The Mandate of Palestine was called like that because of the Holy Land and that has nothing to do with "Palestinians".

Please post a credible link to prove this

I've placed it multiple times.

But they DID steal their land AND the Palestinians were well aware of what they were up to.

The Jews did not steal any land. They bought it with the approval of the Mandate.

It is time that you read official documents instead of those anti-Jew BS.

 

[senojekips]

Palestine as the Holy Land. That's how it was remembered. Are you now going to call them Holly Landers?

Liar You have already been shown a number of maps dating from BCE to to the present day where the land is shown as PALESTINE.

Approximately 60.000 Jews were able to enter illegally between 1939 and 1946. 400.000 - 500.000 entered legally during the mandate. Many Jews who came illegally went from Nazi prison camps to British prison camps. Almost all Arab immigrants entered illegally. None went to prison camps. A gross violation of the mandate.

No, they went to illegal immigrants detention, which was well within the scope of powers granted to the UN appointed administrators. The same happens to illegal immigrants in most countries today.

And while i think of it, here's something else for you to think about. You are always bringing up the subject of Palestine"s lack of sovereignty.

NON-SOVEREIGN STATES: An entity may declare statehood without having full control over all their territories. They can, at a later date, declare sovereignty. Meanwhile, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement. Non-sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation.

Tell me why a land cannot absorb immigrants from one region but can from another?
You forget to mention that the Jews were able to make deserts and swamps into arable land, which the natives could not.
Jews did not drive out the natives. Their land was mostly owned by rich Arabs living outside of the region.

Because they were not just migrants, but illegal migrants for whom there was no space, Palestine was already fully occupied. Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler provided work for 10s of thousands of people living near starvation in pre-war Germany, but the Zionists stole the land of another by driving out the legitimate owners, and anything they did was for their own convenience.

No one was attacking the natives. War was over. Their country (Ottoman Empire) was gone. It was the Islamists and Jihadist who started to attack only the Jews and not Arab immigrants who were also in need of a job and land. If they were right they would have attacked all the immigrants, which they didn't. They only attacked the Jews, including families that lived there longer than any Arab family did. It was a religious attack.
Why do you keep ignoring the facts? Name one capital of your "historical Palestine"! You can't because there never was one. The Mandate of Palestine was called like that because of the Holy Land and that has nothing to do with "Palestinians".

you have had these questions answered a dozen times.
The locals were being swamped by Zionist invaders who had no right to even be there, that is plenty of justification to defend themselves.
Again you try to say it was religious whereas it has been shown many times that it was all about the Zionists grabbing land that was destined to become the Pan Arab state of Palestine.

I've placed it multiple times.

But this says nothing about the reason that the document was called "The Mandate for Palestine". The real reason being, that the area was known as PALESTINE and the mandate was to administer it until the Palestinians could take it over themselves. A plan thwarted by Zionist terror campaign both against the owners of the land and the UN appointed administrators.

The Jews did not steal any land. They bought it with the approval of the Mandate.

Well why did the mandate refuse them legal entry into Palestine, there is no way they were going to do this for illegal immigrants, you're dreaming (or just lying) again.

It is time that you read official documents instead of those anti-Jew BS.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance, I am very proud of my Jewish heritage, it's just the warmongering Zionist occupiers that I detest. Is it that you don't know the difference, or were you just telling another lie to suit your story?

You still have not explained your earlier lies.

You still have not shown your much quoted Frame 633 that you allege enables you to see the victim's uninjured foot inside his shoe and told us how you reached this miraculous conclusion. Another of your lies made up (poorly) on the run.

Neither have you posted any evidence to support your claim that the view of the hole in the sole of the shoe shows it is pushed inwards. Another lie

Also you have never explained how the material you posted, allegedly from Forensic Architecture states clearly the victim was shot in the foot from a range of 1.5 metres and yet their supposedly forensically accurate drawing clearly shows the victim to be 4 metres away. Like you they make up their excuses (very poorly) on the run.

You have never explained how Nahum Sharaf's Official Affidavit denies the findings of the Israeli High Court that Abu Rameh WAS shot in the foot, To many lies for them to keep track of, eh?

You still have not been able to produce this mysterious "uncut" video showing the projectile hitting the ground 6m behind the victim and having this alleged "conversation" on it. So far there is absolutely no evidence that this conversation ever took place, and the only mention that can be found of it is on a Hasbara site run by Rivka Shpak Lissak, an Israeli born Hasbarat, quoting Jonathan D. Halevi an ex Lt Col. in the IDF, now employed by The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (A recognised Hasbara site). Liar!

You also stated that Abu Rameh was not a protester, however it was stated in the court proceedings that he was, He is also clearly visible protesting in the opening scenes of the video. Another Lie on your behalf

 

[VDKMS]

Liar You have already been shown a number of maps dating from BCE to to the present day where the land is shown as PALESTINE.

Show them again and I shall tell you where they are wrong.
Again you are twisting the truth. You are talking about the Roman province Syria Palaestina, a merger from two Roman provinces Judea and Syria. The name Palaestina came from the Greek Philistines.
Judea was Jewish, not Arab.

Where is your muslim Arab "Palestine"? Nowhere. The Jews were already there though!

No, they went to illegal immigrants detention, which was well within the scope of powers granted to the UN appointed administrators. The same happens to illegal immigrants in most countries today.

NON-SOVEREIGN STATES: An entity may declare statehood without having full control over all their territories. They can, at a later date, declare sovereignty. Meanwhile, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement. Non-sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation.

Your beloved "Palestine" is a non souvereign state. then click List of unrecognized states and you will find your beloved "Palestine" listed.

Sovereign states click on List of sovereign states and you will find Israel listed.

You must look for the facts, not the articles you like to read.

"No, they went to illegal immigrants detention"

Men and women were separated just like the Nazis did.

Limiting the Jewish immigration other than for economic absorptive capacity was a breach of the mandate. The UN (Mlle. Dannevig) and even in Britain (Colonel Wedgwood , Mr. Mander) were of this insight.

And while i think of it, here's something else for you to think about. You are always bringing up the subject of Palestine"s lack of sovereignty. Because they were not just migrants, but illegal migrants for whom there was no space, Palestine was already fully occupied. Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler provided work for 10s of thousands of people living near starvation in pre-war Germany, but the Zionists stole the land of another by driving out the legitimate owners, and anything they did was for their own convenience.

Palestine was not fully occupied. Here are the facts:
1922 : 757,182
1946 : 1.810.037 (max population before independence of Israel)
Now : 8.132.000 (Israel) + 4.420.549 (PA) Total : 12.552.549

The mandate could easily have taken all the Jewish refugees.

Within a year the Zionist Committee :

"advanced the money to the Government for the cost of laying a metalled road to the villages of Rishon le Zion and Rehobot from the main Jaffa-Jerusalem road, which forms the first part of a highway to be built to Gaza. The Jewish Co-operative Labour Association, a body supported by the Zionist Organisation, competes for contracts for the construction of roads and other public works. Among the works carried out by it for the Government are the Tiberias-Semakh road, and other roads in Galilee, for a total price of about £E.150,000; the construction of a railway siding for the army at Sarafand, and of a branch line from Ras el Ain to the Jewish village of Petah Tikvah; the building of barracks at Jenin, and of a Government office at Ramleh. The total value of these Government and army contracts to the end of 1922 was nearly £E.200,000."​

And this was only in 1923.

you have had these questions answered a dozen times.
The locals were being swamped by Zionist invaders who had no right to even be there, that is plenty of justification to defend themselves.
Again you try to say it was religious whereas it has been shown many times that it was all about the Zionists grabbing land that was destined to become the Pan Arab state of Palestine.

Again this is all BS. Why do you make those things up? They are not true and official documents prove that.
Jews drained swamps where no one lived. Jews irrigated desert where no one lived and Jews planted trees where no one lived.

From the 1931 report:

"13. In the year 5691 (1931-1932) the Jewish National Fund acquired 9,978 dunums of rural land, which brings the area in its possession to 288,605 dunums. The Fund has completed the drainage works in Haifa Bay, and has installed water-supply and irrigation systems in several settlements. Afforestation of hills and swamps was continued. The Fund has, in all, afforested 6,000 dunums with 1,250,000 trees."​

But this says nothing about the reason that the document was called "The Mandate for Palestine". The real reason being, that the area was known as PALESTINE and the mandate was to administer it until the Palestinians could take it over themselves. A plan thwarted by Zionist terror campaign both against the owners of the land and the UN appointed administrators.
Well why did the mandate refuse them legal entry into Palestine, there is no way they were going to do this for illegal immigrants, you're dreaming (or just lying) again.

Again you are talking BS. The mandate was about the "reconstitution of a Jewish home land" NOT for the Arabs living there to take it over. READ THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS!

From the 1930 UN document:

"It will be recalled that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Mandate, His Majesty's Government are responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants."​

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance, I am very proud of my Jewish heritage, it's just the warmongering Zionist occupiers that I detest. Is it that you don't know the difference, or were you just telling another lie to suit your story?

Thanks to the Zionist the Jews have their land back. Otherwise they would still be scattered all over the world.

You still have not explained your earlier lies.

I don't have to explain them because there are none.

 

[MontyB]

It is probably a good thing Europe has stringent firearms laws because you would have shot your foot off long before now and that could be life threatening given the amount of time you seem to have them in your mouth on this issue.

But play with history then shall well:

Here is a map of the kingdoms of Canaan and I am sure you and all the other zionists are well aware that Canaanites are regarded as the original inhabitants of the region...

(You will note how I have used your words here)
Where is your Jewish "Israel"? Nowhere. No Jews, No Muslims but lots and lots of Pagans.

Now before you say "But the Jews are the descendants of the Canaanites" in the usual attempt to pervert history that can not be the case because and you should see the irony in this since you continually try and pollute biblical history to suit your own aims the Old Testament book of Joshua tells of the Israelites' entry into the land of Canaan as such Israelites can not even be a sect of Canaanite religions.

Therefore it is impossible for Israelites to be descendants of Canaanites which is born out by biblical fairy stories saying Israelites were a transplanted population, Archeology which says none of it happened at all and DNA which says Jews originated from Eastern Europe.

The interesting thing is that as yet there is nothing to say that those who are now calling themselves Palestinians could not have been religious converts from Canaanite extractions as the Palestinians do not have a story about how they came to the land.

Incidently I realise you know and are ignoring this but you should know that Palestinians are not just Muslims Palestinians are in fact all denominations.

 

[senojekips]

Your beloved "Palestine" is a non souvereign state.

then click List of unrecognized states and you will find your beloved "Palestine" listed.

Sovereign states click on List of sovereign states and you will find Israel listed.

and what does being a sovereign State have to do with the question the Zionists have long been known for their disregard of all international Laws and Conventions. Nowhere does this give them the Right to occupy the land of another people then drive the legitimate occupants out. I also noticed on the list that Israel is not recognised by 22 States.

Thus the state of Israel places itself straight away above international law.
Imposed on the U.N. on the 11 May 1949 by the will of the United States, the State of Israel was only admitted on three conditions :

1 - Not to touch the status of Jerusalem;

2 - To allow Palestinian Arabs to come back to their homes;

3 - To respect the borders fixed by the partition decision.

Speaking about this U.N. resolution on "sharing", taken well before its admission, Ben Gurion declares:"The State of Israel considers the U.N. resolution of 29 November 1947 (Res. 181) to be null and void."

Limiting the Jewish immigration other than for economic absorptive capacity was a breach of the mandate. The UN (Mlle. Dannevig) and even in Britain (Colonel Wedgwood , Mr. Mander) were of this insight.

You speak of the opinions of two relatively unheard of individuals regarding the fact was that there was no room for any immigrants once the Pan Arab State was formed. This is why the Zionists drove the people off there land and never allowed them back. (A War Crime under International Law)

The mandate could easily have taken all the Jewish refugees.

No they couldn't, as it would have contravened Article 2, Article 5, Article 6 (and parts of several others) of the Mandate infringing on the rights of the current occupants.

Jews drained swamps where no one lived. Jews irrigated desert where no one lived and Jews planted trees where no one lived.

So I can just take over land in any country that I feel like just because there is no dwelling upon it?

From the 1930 UN document:

"It will be recalled that, under the terms of Article 2 of the Mandate, His Majesty's Government are responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative, and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants.Thanks to the Zionist the Jews have their land back. Otherwise they would still be scattered all over the world.

No, they have the Palestinians land. Any "Jewish National home" would have contravened their own Mandate that is why none was ever ratified.

I don't have to explain them because there are none.

You stated that you could see such miraculous things as the protesters "uninjured" foot in frame 633, which at the time was still within his shoe, but when requested to show the Frame showing this you could not produce any evidence as to how you came by this miracle Frame 633. (Lie)
You claimed that it could also be seen that the exit hole in the sole of the protesters shoe showed the edges to be turned inwards, but when asked for the evidence to support this miracle you could not.(It was a Lie)
You quoted a mysterious "full length version" of the film of the protestor being shot in the foot, but a search of the Internet reveals no such thing ever existed.(Lie)

You have been asked to show proof of these statements you made a dozen times, but you have studiously ignored any request because you know them to be lies.

 

[VDKMS]

It is probably a good thing Europe has stringent firearms laws because you would have shot your foot off long before now and that could be life threatening given the amount of time you seem to have them in your mouth on this issue.

But play with history then shall well:

Here is a map of the kingdoms of Canaan and I am sure you and all the other zionists are well aware that Canaanites are regarded as the original inhabitants of the region...

Thanks! Sure the Canaanites were there before the Jews, but the Canaanites also were a semetic people, like the Jews. Not Arab! And look, the Greek Philistines, the sea peoples! Not "Palestinian" Arabs! It was the Israelites (Semitic Hebrew-speaking people) who took over. Sorry, still no "Palestinians Arabs". For them to appear you have to wait until the immigration of the Egyptian called Arafat in the late 20th century.

Another thing, none of the civilisations on the map exist today.

(You will note how I have used your words here)
Where is your Jewish "Israel"? Nowhere. No Jews, No Muslims but lots and lots of Pagans.

You forget something. Semetic people. Most of them were semetic people, as the Jews.

Now before you say "But the Jews are the descendants of the Canaanites" in the usual attempt to pervert history that can not be the case because and you should see the irony in this since you continually try and pollute biblical history to suit your own aims the Old Testament book of Joshua tells of the Israelites' entry into the land of Canaan as such Israelites can not even be a sect of Canaanite religions.

Oh! And were did the Canaanites came from? And the ones before them, and other before those, etc. We all end up somewhere in southern Africa.

The oldest still living society in that region are the Jews. Period. Same culture, same language , same belief.

Therefore it is impossible for Israelites to be descendants of Canaanites which is born out by biblical fairy stories saying Israelites were a transplanted population, Archeology which says none of it happened at all and DNA which says Jews originated from Eastern Europe.

Most (in fact all but one) DNA studies are in favor of the Jews coming from the Levant. In fact the one study that opposed it also admitted that Jewish parental DNA came from the Levant.

The interesting thing is that as yet there is nothing to say that those who are now calling themselves Palestinians could not have been religious converts from Canaanite extractions as the Palestinians do not have a story about how they came to the land.

Most "Palestinians" are descendants of Arab immigrants from the 19th century on. The Tanzimat period of the Ottoman empire. Look at their names and you'll know where they came from. Listen to the Hamas minister who told the same story, "Palestinians" are not from the region.

Incidently I realise you know and are ignoring this but you should know that Palestinians are not just Muslims Palestinians are in fact all denominations.

"Palestinians" are Arabs.
Constitution of Palestine (2003)

Chapter One
ARTICLE 1
Palestine is part of the large Arab World, and the Palestinian people are part of the Arab Nation. Arab Unity is an objective which the Palestinian People shall work to achieve
ARTICLE 4
Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.
The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be the main source of legislation.
Arabic shall be the official language.​

 

[VDKMS]

http://Lists of non-sovereign nations and what does being a sovereign State have to do with the question the Zionists have long been known for their disregard of all international Laws and Conventions. Nowhere does this give them the Right to occupy the land of another people then drive the legitimate occupants out. I also noticed on the list that Israel is not recognised by 22 States.Thus the state of Israel places itself straight away above international law.

The land Israel has now is because of tho things:
1 : Decision by the International community to give the Jews a homeland.
2 : extra land because of a defensive war.

The Arabs wanted to destroy a member of the UN which is a gross violation of international law and international law gave Israel the right to fight back. This happend several times.

Imposed on the U.N. on the 11 May 1949 by the will of the United States, the State of Israel was only admitted on three conditions :

1 - Not to touch the status of Jerusalem;

2 - To allow Palestinian Arabs to come back to their homes;

3 - To respect the borders fixed by the partition decision.

1 - during the last peace negotiations with Olmert he gave Jerusalem an international statuts. Abbas refused.

2 - You forget one very important thing:

"Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date"​

Terrorists will not live at peace with their Jewish neigbours.

3 - Since the "Palestinians" Arabs refused their part of the deal the eastern border of Israel borders Jordan, AKA the border of the non existing Arab partition.

Speaking about this U.N. resolution on "sharing", taken well before its admission, Ben Gurion declares:"The State of Israel considers the U.N. resolution of 29 November 1947 (Res. 181) to be null and void."

You are twisting the truth here:
from Letter dated 30 March 1999 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General:

For these reasons, Israel's first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stated before the Knesset on 3 December 1949: "Thus we can no longer regard the United Nations resolution of 29th November as having any moral force. After the United Nations failed to implement its own resolution, we regard the resolution of the 29th November concerning Jerusalem to be null and void."​

You stated that you could see such miraculous things as the protesters "uninjured" foot in frame 633, which at the time was still within his shoe, but when requested to show the Frame showing this you could not produce any evidence as to how you came by this miracle Frame 633. (Lie)
You claimed that it could also be seen that the exit hole in the sole of the protesters shoe showed the edges to be turned inwards, but when asked for the evidence to support this miracle you could not.(It was a Lie)
You quoted a mysterious "full length version" of the film of the protestor being shot in the foot, but a search of the Internet reveals no such thing ever existed.(Lie)

You have been asked to show proof of these statements you made a dozen times, but you have studiously ignored any request because you know them to be lies.

blablablabla. He was not even hit! Period.

 

[MontyB]

The land Israel has now is because of tho things:
1 : Decision by the International community to give the Jews a homeland.
2 : extra land because of a defensive war.

The Arabs wanted to destroy a member of the UN which is a gross violation of international law and international law gave Israel the right to fight back. This happend several times.

You persist in taking random events and linking them.
1) Even if the UN signed over 50% of Palestine to a Jewish homeland in violation of international law at the time it did not give the other 50% to them they took it.

2) Extra land from a "defensive" war has been so shot full of holes that you cant even convince the Americans of it any more but lets assume for shits and giggles that you are right and that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were going to attack Israel and the Israelis attacked first (please not that is your narrative and I think that is a load of BS) the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and not part of Jordan (Only Pakistan and Britain recognised the annexation) therefore the West Bank was not Jordanian to take.

3 - Since the "Palestinians" Arabs refused their part of the deal the eastern border of Israel borders Jordan, AKA the border of the non existing Arab partition.

Again you are omitting facts here but please explain how any area that was never assigned to a Jewish state suddenly becomes Jewish land because 3rd party countries used it to attack the area assigned to a Jewish state.

In essence it is like saying that all of occupied Europe belongs to the countries that drove the Germans out.

Like it or not the land was still assigned to an Arab state and as such it can not be considered up for grabs.

blablablabla. He was not even hit! Period.

Would you like to change your testimony?

I find it incredibly odd that a man can beconvicted of actions you claim didn't happen.

IDF convicts commander, soldier in shooting of bound Palestinian
Lt. Col. Omri Burberg was filmed holding the blindfolded prisoner and ordering his soldier, Staff Sgt. Leonardo Korea, to fire a rubber bullet his leg in Na'alin two years ago.

By Anshel Pfeffer | Jul. 15, 2010 | 10:26 AM

An Israel Defense Forces court on Thursday convicted a former commander and a soldier involved in shooting a bound Palestinian at close range in the West Bank city of Na'alin two years ago.

The affair unfolded after Lt. Col. Omri Burberg was filmed holding the blindfolded and bound prisoner and ordering Staff Sgt. Leonardo Korea to fire a rubber bullet his leg. The Palestinian, 27-year-old Ashraf Abu Rahme, was lightly wounded in the incident.

Burberg and Korea were charged with unbecoming behavior after a military-police investigation into the affair. Burberg was transferred following the incident from his post in Battalion 71 to the armored corps training grounds at Tze'elim.

In response to the relatively light charges, four civil-rights organizations petitioned the High Court of Justice on behalf of Abu Rahme, requesting that the court order the Military Advocate General to change the charge to something more serious.
Military Advocate General Avichai Mandelblit responded by adding attempted threat and behavior unfitting for a commander to the charges against Burburg, and illegal use of a weapon to the charges against Korea.

Burberg arrested Ashraf Abu Rahme on July 7, 2008 for his "involvement in disrupting the peace." The prisoner was taken to the entry of the village, where he was bound and his eyes were covered.

Burberg, who had known Abu Rahme because of his role in previous demonstrations, allegedly said: "Now you will stop demonstrating against the IDF." Abu Rahme responded in Arabic, which suggests he might not understand Hebrew.

The officer suspected that Abu Rahme was lying, and turned to Korea, a soldier on his staff, and asked him: "What do you say - should we take him aside and shoot him with a rubber [bullet]?"

Korea said in response: "I have no problem to shoot him with a rubber [bullet]."

Burberg stood the prisoner on his feet, led him to a nearby jeep and told L. to prepare a rubber bullet. "I already have one in the barrel," L. responded.

At that point, L. aimed at the Palestinian's foot and fired a rubber bullet from a very short range. Burberg allegedly pushed the soldier and shouted at him for shooting a bound prisoner. L. said he thought he had received an order to shoot. "As a result of the shooting, Abu Rahme suffered superficial injuries on his left toe, was treated by a medic and did not require further care," the chief prosecutor, Colonel Liron Liebman, wrote in the original indictment.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ier-in-shooting-of-bound-palestinian-1.302101


Right so now we have established it did happen how about answering his questions rather than trying to weasel around them.

In an effort to improve your hasbara training mainly because I like a challenge which to date you are not providing let me offer you one more piece of advice stop treating people like idiots as we can see what is going on you cant deny it all you can do is try to justify it. I have tried giving you this advice before and clearly it isn't sinking in so perhaps pass it on to your controller.

Where is boyne by the way I haven't seen him on in a while, still changing location flags or is that sorted now?

 

[VDKMS]

You persist in taking random events and linking them.
1) Even if the UN signed over 50% of Palestine to a Jewish homeland in violation of international law at the time it did not give the other 50% to them they took it.

The Mandate of Palestine IS international law and legally binding. The Partition plan was rejected by the Arabs.

"The Mandate was subsequently protected by Article 80 of the United Nations Charter that recognizes the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments including those adopted by the League of Nations. The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations."​

So, in fact the Jews can settle anywhere in the land allocated to them and this includes the West Banks and Gaza.

2) Extra land from a "defensive" war has been so shot full of holes that you cant even convince the Americans of it any more but lets assume for shits and giggles that you are right and that Egypt, Jordan and Syria were going to attack Israel and the Israelis attacked first (please not that is your narrative and I think that is a load of BS) the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and not part of Jordan (Only Pakistan and Britain recognised the annexation) therefore the West Bank was not Jordanian to take.

Read international law! The (Egyptian) blockade of (Israeli) ports is an act of war in international law and gives the blocked nation (Israel) the right to start a defensive war. And because Egypt had military agreements, those nations also became ones that started the act of war.

Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was part of the Jewish homeland of the Palestine Mandate. There was no other country formed and the Arabs (they didn't call themselves "Palestinians" back then) rejected it.

Again you are omitting facts here but please explain how any area that was never assigned to a Jewish state suddenly becomes Jewish land because 3rd party countries used it to attack the area assigned to a Jewish state.

The "Palestine Mandate" is the fact. Only the Jews were given political rights (forming a government). Nowhere in the document states that the Arabs were given political rights. The ones who were living there were allowed to stay and Arab immigration was prohibited. The Arabs allready got Transjordan which was off limits for the Jews.

In essence it is like saying that all of occupied Europe belongs to the countries that drove the Germans out.

The European countries were there before and after the war. The Ottoman Empire was no more after the war. BTW there was no "Palestine" either before the Turks came to power.

Like it or not the land was still assigned to an Arab state and as such it can not be considered up for grabs.

You can't have evidence for that.

"The entire League of Nations – 51 countries – unanimously declared on July 24th, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."​

Would you like to change your testimony?

NO

I find it incredibly odd that a man can beconvicted of actions you claim didn't happen.

He was not hit.

IDF convicts commander, soldier in shooting of bound Palestinian
Lt. Col. Omri Burberg was filmed holding the blindfolded prisoner and ordering his soldier, Staff Sgt. Leonardo Korea, to fire a rubber bullet his leg in Na'alin two years ago.

By Anshel Pfeffer | Jul. 15, 2010 | 10:26 AM

An Israel Defense Forces court on Thursday convicted a former commander and a soldier involved in shooting a bound Palestinian at close range in the West Bank city of Na'alin two years ago.

The affair unfolded after Lt. Col. Omri Burberg was filmed holding the blindfolded and bound prisoner and ordering Staff Sgt. Leonardo Korea to fire a rubber bullet his leg. The Palestinian, 27-year-old Ashraf Abu Rahme, was lightly wounded in the incident.

Burberg and Korea were charged with unbecoming behavior after a military-police investigation into the affair. Burberg was transferred following the incident from his post in Battalion 71 to the armored corps training grounds at Tze'elim.

In response to the relatively light charges, four civil-rights organizations petitioned the High Court of Justice on behalf of Abu Rahme, requesting that the court order the Military Advocate General to change the charge to something more serious.
Military Advocate General Avichai Mandelblit responded by adding attempted threat and behavior unfitting for a commander to the charges against Burburg, and illegal use of a weapon to the charges against Korea.

Burberg arrested Ashraf Abu Rahme on July 7, 2008 for his "involvement in disrupting the peace." The prisoner was taken to the entry of the village, where he was bound and his eyes were covered.

Burberg, who had known Abu Rahme because of his role in previous demonstrations, allegedly said: "Now you will stop demonstrating against the IDF." Abu Rahme responded in Arabic, which suggests he might not understand Hebrew.

The officer suspected that Abu Rahme was lying, and turned to Korea, a soldier on his staff, and asked him: "What do you say - should we take him aside and shoot him with a rubber [bullet]?"

Korea said in response: "I have no problem to shoot him with a rubber [bullet]."

Burberg stood the prisoner on his feet, led him to a nearby jeep and told L. to prepare a rubber bullet. "I already have one in the barrel," L. responded.

At that point, L. aimed at the Palestinian's foot and fired a rubber bullet from a very short range. Burberg allegedly pushed the soldier and shouted at him for shooting a bound prisoner. L. said he thought he had received an order to shoot. "As a result of the shooting, Abu Rahme suffered superficial injuries on his left toe, was treated by a medic and did not require further care," the chief prosecutor, Colonel Liron Liebman, wrote in the original indictment.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ier-in-shooting-of-bound-palestinian-1.302101


Right so now we have established it did happen how about answering his questions rather than trying to weasel around them.

Where does it say that the bullet hit him??? It says

"As a result of the shooting"​

Not that he was directly hit. You better read the document before posting it.

In an effort to improve your hasbara training mainly because I like a challenge which to date you are not providing let me offer you one more piece of advice stop treating people like idiots as we can see what is going on you cant deny it all you can do is try to justify it. I have tried giving you this advice before and clearly it isn't sinking in so perhaps pass it on to your controller.

Read the thread Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other info. There your friend stated:

"deliberately shot through the thigh with a rubber bullet"​

Now you show me how come that a man is shot through the tigh with a rubber bullet ends up with a blister on his toe!!!

Now who is talking BS.

Where is boyne by the way I haven't seen him on in a while, still changing location flags or is that sorted now?

Don't know.

 

[MontyB]

"As a result of the shooting"​

[/I]
Not that he was directly hit. You better read the document before posting it.



Read the thread Rubber bullets, pros, cons, and other info. There your friend stated:

"deliberately shot through the thigh with a rubber bullet"​

Now you show me how come that a man is shot through the tigh with a rubber bullet ends up with a blister on his toe!!!

Now who is talking BS.



Don't know.

So your position is that Colonels get convicted for not shooting a blindfolded prisoner and apparently Palestinians can manufacture superficial injuries to their toes while in custody that are so convincing that they require medical treatment at the time of the incident?

That the shooter was either such a poor shot that he couldn't hit a grown man at 2 metres or more than likely put in a halfhearted effort and grazed his foot requiring treatment does not negate the fact that he was shot.

Let me make this easy for your hasbara addled mind and give you the reported testimony of the accused...

The officer suspected that Abu Rahme was lying, and turned to Korea, a soldier on his staff, and asked him: "What do you say - should we take him aside and shoot him with a rubber [bullet]?"

Korea said in response: "I have no problem to shoot him with a rubber [bullet]."

Burberg stood the prisoner on his feet, led him to a nearby jeep and told L. to prepare a rubber bullet. "I already have one in the barrel," L. responded.

At that point, L. aimed at the Palestinian's foot and fired a rubber bullet from a very short range. Burberg allegedly pushed the soldier and shouted at him for shooting a bound prisoner. L. said he thought he had received an order to shoot. "As a result of the shooting, Abu Rahme suffered superficial injuries on his left toe, was treated by a medic and did not require further care," the chief prosecutor, Colonel Liron Liebman, wrote in the original indictment.

Dance around this all you like but thems the facts and best of all they are the facts according to your side, now answer his questions.

 

[VDKMS]

So your position is that Colonels get convicted for not shooting a blindfolded prisoner and apparently Palestinians can manufacture superficial injuries to their toes while in custody that are so convincing that they require medical treatment at the time of the incident?

There was NO bullet wound and the soldiers were convicted for their behaviour.

That the shooter was either such a poor shot that he couldn't hit a grown man at 2 metres or more than likely put in a halfhearted effort and grazed his foot requiring treatment does not negate the fact that he was shot.

If the bullet would have hit his foot the injury would have been far greater than a blister.

It's very obvious that the shot was meant to scare the guy.

Let me make this easy for your hasbara addled mind and give you the reported testimony of the accused...



Dance around this all you like but thems the facts and best of all they are the facts according to your side, now answer his questions.

A shot was fired and the victim was not hit. A bullet, not even a rubber one, does not cause a blister when it hits a toe from 2 meters.

This is a toe hit by a bulett, where is the blister?

 

[VDKMS]

Part 3

Nazi tactics.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." A quote from either Hitler or Goebbels and vigorously applied not only by the "Palestinians" but also by foreign media (New York Times, Guardian, BBC , France 2 to name some).
Here are some of those lies:
Palestinians are descendants of the Filistines. ("Palestinians")

(New York Times)
al-Dura incident (France 2)
Repporter Harriet Sherwood with multiple wrong articles (Guardian)
BBC reporter Jihad Masharawi's son killed by Israeli rocket attack (BBC)

remenber this?

Well, this was not a Nazi invention. As far back as AD717 jews and other religious groups other than muslim were required to wear distinctive clothing. In 2001 the Taliban forced the Hindu minority to wear yellow badges in public.
It's origin is Islamic.


Why is it about religion?

The first mosque ever was not build. It was a temple of another religion captured by Muhammad who destroyed the 360 symbols representing that religion and then claimed the building as his first mosque. This is tipical for his religion.
In India muslims destroyed thousands of Hindoe temples. They build mosques on top of the birthplaces of both Krishna and Rama and destroyed the Kashi Vishwanath temple.
The first thing the muslims did when they conquered Jerusalem was to build a mosque on top of the Temple Mount. That mosque became the third holiest place in Islam with the fake explanation that it was the farthest mosque when Muhammad died. Muhammad died before that mosque was build. BTW, Jerusalem is not even mentioned in the Quran.
The first thing the muslim Ottomans did when they conquered Constantinople was to declare the Hagia Sophia a mosque.
In Spain they destroyed the cathedral at Santiago de Compostela. The Córdoba Cathedral was not a mosque first but the Visigothic church of St. Vincent.
In France they were on their way to plunder and destroy the cathedral in Tours, but the invincible muslem cavalry was defeated by the Frankish infantry.
Remember 9/11? Didn't they build a mosque in the vicinity of ground zero? They don't call it a mosque but Park51. But make no mistake about it, there are prayers going on and they will attract islamists and jihadist to visit their victory mosque. I bet that the Arabic version of the prayers will not be the same as the English one.
Many moderate muslims claim that the islamists and Jihadists give a wrong interpretation of the Quran. They are wrong. The moderates have a better interpretation of the Quran. The Islamists and the Jihadists follow the Quran as the first muslims did, and they surely would have known how to follow it. The founder of the "religion of peace" fought 81 battles. The expansion of the Ummah (muslim territory) was by force. Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism didn't have an army like Islam did to expand their religion.
As long as the "Palestinians" (muslims) do not have control over the Temple Mount there will be no peace. Barak and Olmert both gave the "Palestinians" everything they wanted except control of the Temple Mount. Arafat and Abas both walked away from the peace negotiations. Now again. No control of the Temple Mount and they make an alliance with Hamas, who wants the destruction of Israel. The settlements? Has nothing to do with it. They will be destroyed once they fall into muslim hands, just as they did when they got Gaza back. The settlements are a fake excuse and only serve to play the victim. If they would tell the truth (control of the Temple Mount) the world would turn against them. As long as the region was under muslim control there was no mention nor a call for an independent "Palestine". It all started only when the ummah was going to lose territory to the Jews (same for the Christians in Lebanon BTW).
Israel used to be part of their ummah. They lost it to the Jews and want it back. Just as they wan back Al Andalus. What they forget is that most of their ummah does not belong to them.
Now the islamists have a caliphate (parts of Syria and Iraq). What was one of the first things they did? Right, destroy the other's religious buildings. The dream of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is part of) became reality, unfortunately for them they are not in control of it. But who cares, It's all Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

 

[MontyB]

Well I think the activities of the last month and a bit have pretty much answered the original question.

But now I have a question for those with artillery knowledge, what do you think of the veracity of this article...

Why It's Hard to Believe Israel's Claim That It Did Its Best to Minimize Civilian Deaths

Posted: 08/13/2014 11:45 am EDT Updated: 08/13/2014 11:59 am EDT

Among the difficult reports streaming in from Gaza over the past few weeks, two especially painful events have captured my attention.
The first was the shelling of a UN school building in Jabaliya, where a number of families that had escaped or been forced to flee their homes had taken refuge.

At least 15 civilians were killed, and dozens more wounded. Israel argued they were targeting an area from which fire had been directed at Israeli forces.

The second was the bombing of a bustling market in the Shuja'iya neighborhood. At a time of precious few opportunities for civilians to safely buy food and other vital supplies, 16 people were killed and around 200 were wounded. Shops, stalls and merchandise were burned or destroyed.

Harsh criticism of Israel followed each incident but -- as in the past -- Israel defended its actions, arguing that it was targeting militants and doing its best to avoid civilian casualties.

I served as a crew commander in the Israeli artillery corps at the beginning of the Second Intifada, and I feel compelled to counter this claim from Israel. The images, evidence and army reports from recent operations in Gaza -- of more than 1,900 deaths (a number which will likely increase by the time you read this) and a large amount of the population left without shelter -- show that Israel has deployed massive artillery firepower. Such firepower is impossible to target precisely.

Artillery fire is a statistical means of warfare. It is the complete opposite of sniper fire. While the power of sharpshooting lies in its accuracy, the power of artillery comes from the quantity of shells fired and the massive impact of each one.

In using artillery against Gaza, Israel therefore cannot sincerely argue that it is doing everything in its power to spare the innocent.

The truth is artillery shells cannot be aimed precisely and are not meant to hit specific targets. A standard 40 kilogram shell is nothing but a large fragmentation grenade. When it explodes, it is meant to kill anyone within a 50-meter radius and to wound anyone within a further 100 meters.

Furthermore, the humidity in the air, the heat of the barrel, and the direction of the wind can all cause unguided shells to land 30 or even 100 meters from where they were aimed. That is a huge margin of error in somewhere as densely packed as Gaza.

The imprecision of this weaponry is so great that Israeli forces are compelled to aim at least 250 meters away from friendly troops to ensure their safety -- even if those troops are sheltered. In military terms, this distance is called the "safe range of fire."

In 2006, when shelling was first used against the Gaza Strip, the "safe range of fire" for Palestinian civilians was reduced from 300 to just 100 meters. Shortly afterwards, a stray shell landed inside the home of the Ghabeen family in Beit Lahiya, killing a young girl, Hadeel, and wounding other members of her family.

In response to this and similar tragedies, human rights organizations appealed to the Israeli High Court of Justice to cease this lethal practice, and in June 2007 the Attorney-General announced that no more artillery fire was to be used in the Gaza Strip.

But just a few years later, during Operation Cast Lead, extensive artillery fire was again aimed at the heart of the Gaza Strip. And up until the recent ceasefire, throughout Operation Protective Edge, Israel has fired thousands of artillery shells into Gaza -- causing intolerable harm to civilians and widespread destruction, the extent of which will only be fully exposed when the fighting ceases.

It's true that in at least some cases, the army has informed civilians of its plans to attack a certain area and advised them to leave. But this in no way excuses the excessive damage and huge toll on civilian lives.
I write this with great sorrow for civilians hurt on both sides. Sorrow for our soldiers who have fallen in this operation, and sorrow for the future of my country and the entire region. I know that as I write, soldiers like me have fired shells into Gaza.

They had no way of knowing who or what they would hit.
Faced with so many innocent casualties, it is time for us to state very clearly: this use of artillery fire is a deadly game of Russian roulette. The statistics, on which such firepower relies, mean that in densely populated areas such as Gaza, civilians will inevitably be hit as well. The IDF knows this, and as long as it continues to use such weaponry, it will be hard to believe when it claims to be minimizing civilian deaths.

As a former soldier and an Israeli citizen, I feel compelled to ask today: have we not crossed a line?
Idan Barir served in the Israeli artillery corps during the Second Intifada and is a member of Breaking the Silence

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/idan-barir/israel-gaza-civilian-deaths_b_5673023.html

 

[VDKMS]

here are some replies to that article that you can find all over the internet:

The writer makes an inexact comparison between sniper and artillery fire. Sniper fire has limited distance and destructive capabilities. Sniper fire will not take out an enemy tank or underground missile launcher 25 kilometers away. Artillery systems assisted by computers, gps and lasers can be very accurate. The Raytheon BAE system has an error accuracy of only 5 meters. Israel Military Industries Accular GPS system has accuracy subject to error within 10 meters.

Since the second intifada, Israel has also replaced its older radar system for acquiring and targeting areas with the more accurate EL/M-2448 Multimission Radar (Raz) system.

Israel is also working on the Romach rocket which only has an error ratio of 5 meters.

However, one must recognize that artillery is not meant as a stand alone system but as part of an integrated armed force supporting troops on the ground. Sometimes artillery is used to lay down a withering barrage to support troops on the ground to allow them to better attack and destroy enemy targets. This has consequences when the battlefield is in an urban environment. It means civilians will be collateral damage.

This is the price of war started by a terrorist organization using its own civilians as human shields while attacking Israeli forces and firing rockets at Israeli civilians.

If your neighbor held his children in front of him and shot to kill your children would you not shoot back even though his children might be killed?​

here's another one

Both of the attacks mentioned by the author may not be of IDF origin. Both may be of Hamas origin. Over 10% of Hamas rockets landed inside Gaza. Additionally, in many cases where IDF fire hit accurately, secondary explosions from arms hidden by Hamas caused great damage to those nearby.

Perhaps Breaking the Silence could devote some energy to breaking the silence of the murderous irresponsibility of Hamas and its allies?​

This is what I have to say:

Israel fired more than 40.000 (!) 155mm artillery shells into Gaza. If those shells were as inaccurate as the writer want us to believe then the "Palestinian" casualties would be much much higher.

If all "Palestinian" deaths were caused by artillery fire then Israel needed 20 155mm shels to kill one "Palestinian" in a densely populated area. If that was true, and some want us to believe that they target civilians, then that army better dissolve because it would be useless.

The truth is that no other army in the world is able to do so much damage with so little collateral damage. No other army in the world send SMS messages to the enemy that an attack is imminent. No other army in the world use knock-on-door bombs. On top of that, Israel also uses pamphlets to warn them.

Hamas does nothing of that. On the contrary. They told their population to stay inside because it was all Israeli psychological warfare, with all its consequences.
"Palestinian" rockets are incredibly inaccurate and deliberately target civilians. It's only because of Israeli defensive actions that there are almost no civilian deaths. (Obligation to have a safe room, bomb shelters, warning sirens and last but not least Iron Dome).

 

[MontyB]

The truth is that no other army in the world is able to do so much damage with so little collateral damage. No other army in the world send SMS messages to the enemy that an attack is imminent. No other army in the world use knock-on-door bombs. On top of that, Israel also uses pamphlets to warn them.

And somehow you think giving somewhere between 45 seconds and 5 minutes for multiple families to evacuate a building is sufficient warning or justifies attacking a civilian target.

Just as an aside I would also point out that the IRA used to provide warnings of their attacks as well, it did not make them any less of a terrorist group.

As for the rest you will understand if I disregard your comments and those of anonymous internet trolls out of preference for the views of someone that actually understands and is experienced in the use and deployment of artillery.

Oh and lets not forget that you are justifying 40000 155mm shells into what is predominantly a civilian environment and UN facilities where the population has already been concentrated.

 

[VDKMS]

And somehow you think giving somewhere between 45 seconds and 5 minutes for multiple families to evacuate a building is sufficient warning or justifies attacking a civilian target.

Israelis have less time to run to their shelters and get NO warning from Hamas.

Just as an aside I would also point out that the IRA used to provide warnings of their attacks as well, it did not make them any less of a terrorist group.

Hamas give no warning at all.

As for the rest you will understand if I disregard your comments and those of anonymous internet trolls out of preference for the views of someone that actually understands and is experienced in the use and deployment of artillery.

Who says he is an IDF soldier and not a "Palestinian" fabrication?

Oh and lets not forget that you are justifying 40000 155mm shells into what is predominantly a civilian environment and UN facilities where the population has already been concentrated.

Exclusive: Hamas rocket launch pad lies near Gaza homes

When Hamas fighters use civilian properties as a cover or a means to attack the opponent those properties becomes legitimate military targets according to the laws of war. The Hamas fighters are responsible for the safety of the civilians inside that property.

In 3 UN facilities Hamas rockets were found and in at least one occasion those rockets were given back to Hamas to attack Israel which means that the UN, who should be neutral, assisted Hamas in attacking Israel. Where is the UN investigation?