172LikesNot where the very existance of one side is at stake.Originally Posted by Dadaist
Not where the very existance of one side is at stake.
And which side is that you are refering to?
Some people take one side or the other.
Some people try to stay neutral.
Some people have no interest.
It's a free country.
Would you have told an Irish member of the Anti Apartheid Movement that they couldn't
support black South African protest - because they weren't 'one of the conflicting parties'???
This is my point. It is not a football match.
But supporting the cause of anti-apartheid is rational. There is nothing irrational about wanting to do away with apartheid. Even some white South Africans were in favour of the anti-apartheid cause. Absolute support for the Palestinian's or Israel is irrational.Would you have told an Irish member of the Anti Apartheid Movement that they couldn't
support black South African protest - because they weren't 'one of the conflicting parties'???
Who said it was a football match?
Who said the support was absolute?
This has to be the one of the dumbest arguments I've seen on P.ie. You are aware that the Aleph and Yud in the Hebrew script stands for 'Eretz Yisrael', right? That term well predates 'Palestine'.
Last edited by The System Works; 17th October 2012 at 09:58 AM.
Here are the brutal facts of the Zionist Terrorist occupation:-
Key Facts | ICAHD
Extract:
8. Are Israeli settlements legal under international law?
No. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is prohibited from establishing settlements: “The Occupying Power shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies.”
9. What other international laws does the Israeli Occupation violate?
Virtually all of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands violates human rights conventions – and especially the Fourth Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from making its presence a permanent one. Thus:
Articles 50 and 51 of the “Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention” emphasize the protection of civilians in time of war. "The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians…. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations."
Article 3 prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," a routine element of Palestinian life under Israel's occupation.
Article 32 forbids assassinations, and any brutalization of the civilian population, including their treatment at checkpoints and in "security searches."
Article 33 prohibiting pillage would obtain to Israel’s extensive use of West Bank and Gazan water resources, especially as they are denied the local population. It also prohibits the use of collective punishment, as represented by the imposition of closure, curfew, house demolitions and many other routine actions of the Occupation Authorities.
Article 39 stipulates: “Protected persons [residents of occupied lands] who, as a result of the war, have lost their gainful employment, shall be granted the opportunity to find paid employment.” It thereby prohibits the imposition a permanent “closure” on the Occupied Territories, such as Israel has done since 1993.
Article 64 forbids changes in the local legal system that, among other things, alienate the local population from its land and property, as Israel has done through massive land expropriations.
Article 146 holds accountable individuals who have committed “grave breaches” of the Convention. According to Article 147, this includes many acts routinely practiced under the Occupation, such as willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, unlawful deportation, taking of hostages, extensive destruction, and appropriation of property. Israeli courts have thus far failed to charge or prosecute Israeli officials, military personnel or police who have committed such acts.
The PLO also bears a measure of responsibility for the violations of its own people's rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention. According to Article 8, the PLO had no right in the Oslo Agreements to abrogate their rights and suspend the applicability of the Convention, since “Protected persons may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention.” Had international humanitarian law been the basis of the Oslo peace process rather than power-negotiations, the Occupation would have ended and the conditions for a just peace would have been established, since virtually every element of Israel’s occupation violates a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Last edited by timhorgan; 17th October 2012 at 10:07 AM.
From the link ..........
All in all this seems a selective loony left view of the situation. They have admitted as much by saying that they pitch to outside "civil society" as presumably the Israelis themselves see through the BSAll the OPT comprises only 22% of historic Palestine between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The fragmentation of the Palestinian territories began in the Oslo “peace process,” when in the Oslo II agreement of 1995 the West Bank was divided into Areas A, B and C. Today the Palestinian Authority controls Area A (18% of the West Bank, though in fact Israel invades at will) and Area B (another 22% of the West Bank, although Israel controls the security and patrols the territory). Area C, 60 of the West Bank (where the settlements are), is under full Israeli control. East Jerusalem, where 240,000 Palestinian live and which the international community considers occupied territory, has been formally annexed by Israel and, from Israel’s perspective, is not part of the occupied territories. The PA is forbidden to have any presence in East Jerusalem. Gaza, only 6.5% of the OPT, is under PA/Hamas control. Under the Oslo agreements Gaza is considered an integral unit of the OPT and should be treated as one in the same as the West Bank. In fact, Israel has besieged and isolated it completely in the late 1980s.
All in all, then, the Palestinian sort of control about 40% of the OPT and thus only 10% of historic Palestine.
They also never explain what 'historic Palestine' actually is. Before 1922, Jordan was part of the Mandate of Palestine. This means Arabs actually run about 80% of 'historic Palestine'. They appear to define 'historic Palestine' as a set of borders drawn by Europeans that existed for about two decades, from 1922 to 1947.
But if there's one thing Islamists/leftists don't do, its logic.
