Mossad Chief: Israel becoming a burden for the USA

[mortimer]

It was my strong impression you were asking after evidence that the territories were occupied in the military sense. I presented that. If not occupation what were you asking about?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6261561&postcount=79

 

[Matt Giwer]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6261561&postcount=79

Yes I only included a mention of the 4th Geneva Convention. I should not have expected you to actually read it.

It is a crime as the occupied territory must be administered to the benefit of the occupied people save in matters of military necessity. That is why Israel's original BS was that the squattertowns were for the defense of Israel and therefore served a military purpose. Israel has since dropped that line -- out of embarrassment for breaking the myth of smart Jews I like to think.

Lets take just this section of the 4th Geneva Convention to start.

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

Note minimum not maximum.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

Note this prohibits any discrimination between Israelis and Palestinians but if you want to note a particular word is missing bickering is not a good approach.

Specific to the discrimination is that the Palestinians are subject to military courts and the Israelis to civilian courts. This is a prima fascia violation of the convention.

Then there are closed military zones which are an excuse to expel Palestinians so Israelis can take over their homes and villages. So another example of criminal discrimination in direct violation of the convention.

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

These things are regularly inflicted upon Palestinians. Cold blooded executions and the cynical dismissal of serious charges by military courts are regularly reported. Children as young as ten have been held for questioning for days with 16 hrs of questioning a day for some. This is not denied by the IDF. When it comes to the old tradition of catching kids who throw stones and breaking their throwing arms that is certainly cruel treatment, likely qualifies as torture and if there is an impairment of function which occurs to some extent with almost all bone breaks that constitutes mutilation.

Those are just off the top of my head. There is much more.

(b) taking of hostages;

Within a week of Gilad Shalit becoming a POW of Hamas Israel arrested Hamas members in the West Bank and openly said they were hostages to the safety of Shalit. Several of them are still held hostage to the present day. Needless to say without charges much less trials.

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

There are weekly reports of IDF kids humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints in the West Bank. Forcing them to sings songs, curse their mothers, crawl in the mud, held for hours and forced to stand in the sun without water or relief to take a piss.

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

It is Israeli policy to do exactly this. It is called cold blooded murder. It even has a defender here who uses the term "targeted killings" which is the Israeli equivalent of extreme prejudice.

This is just starting at the top of the convention. There is much more to it. It only gets worse. For example now that is it clear Gaza is still occupied jumping way ahead to

Art. 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.

The Occupying Power may not requisition foodstuffs, articles or medical supplies available in the occupied territory, except for use by the occupation forces and administration personnel, and then only if the requirements of the civilian population have been taken into account. Subject to the provisions of other International Conventions, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements to ensure that fair value is paid for any requisitioned goods.

The Protecting Power shall, at any time, be at liberty to verify the state of the food and medical supplies in occupied territories, except where temporary restrictions are made necessary by imperative military requirements.

Shows the "everything but 114 specific items" blockade is clearly criminal.

Please no bickering.

 

[Matt Giwer]

I do find it strangely amusing that you would label those who don't get head-first into a possible booby-trapped building as 'cowards'.

Which is an admission of knowingly forcing a Palestinian to take that same risk that the IDF wimps are too cowardly to take themselves. Hiding behind anyone is the act of cowards.

But what can you really expect from garrison troopers?

 

[mortimer]

Yes I only included a mention of the 4th Geneva Convention. I should not have expected you to actually read it.

It is a crime as the occupied territory must be administered to the benefit of the occupied people save in matters of military necessity. That is why Israel's original BS was that the squattertowns were for the defense of Israel and therefore served a military purpose. Israel has since dropped that line -- out of embarrassment for breaking the myth of smart Jews I like to think.

Lets take just this section of the 4th Geneva Convention to start.



Note minimum not maximum.



Note this prohibits any discrimination between Israelis and Palestinians but if you want to note a particular word is missing bickering is not a good approach.

Specific to the discrimination is that the Palestinians are subject to military courts and the Israelis to civilian courts. This is a prima fascia violation of the convention.

Then there are closed military zones which are an excuse to expel Palestinians so Israelis can take over their homes and villages. So another example of criminal discrimination in direct violation of the convention.



These things are regularly inflicted upon Palestinians. Cold blooded executions and the cynical dismissal of serious charges by military courts are regularly reported. Children as young as ten have been held for questioning for days with 16 hrs of questioning a day for some. This is not denied by the IDF. When it comes to the old tradition of catching kids who throw stones and breaking their throwing arms that is certainly cruel treatment, likely qualifies as torture and if there is an impairment of function which occurs to some extent with almost all bone breaks that constitutes mutilation.

Those are just off the top of my head. There is much more.



Within a week of Gilad Shalit becoming a POW of Hamas Israel arrested Hamas members in the West Bank and openly said they were hostages to the safety of Shalit. Several of them are still held hostage to the present day. Needless to say without charges much less trials.



There are weekly reports of IDF kids humiliating Palestinians at checkpoints in the West Bank. Forcing them to sings songs, curse their mothers, crawl in the mud, held for hours and forced to stand in the sun without water or relief to take a piss.



It is Israeli policy to do exactly this. It is called cold blooded murder. It even has a defender here who uses the term "targeted killings" which is the Israeli equivalent of extreme prejudice.

This is just starting at the top of the convention. There is much more to it. It only gets worse. For example now that is it clear Gaza is still occupied jumping way ahead to



Shows the "everything but 114 specific items" blockade is clearly criminal.

Please no bickering.

You'll have to provide reliable evidence to all your claims for anyone to believe you. Well, anyone but your Neo-Nazi cohorts.

 

[Matt Giwer]

You'll have to provide reliable evidence to all your claims for anyone to believe you. Well, anyone but your Neo-Nazi cohorts.

Anyone familiar with the facts in the occupied territories as reported by news sources which are both jewish and israeli knows what I posted is common knowledge in Israel. You are somewhat correct in your response. Most Israelis assume an action is neutral and only assumes its praiseworthy or criminal nature depending upon who does it. The religious foundation of Israelis holds they can do no wrong so the issue is moot regarding anything they do.

That you choose to call names instead of either 1) admit your ignorance of the subject or 2) are trying to divert the discussion by calling me a zionist does nothing to change the fact that I have demonstrated the criminality of the occupation as you requested.

Most every discussion of the genesis of the 4th convention will recite it was specifically tailored to the actions of Germany during WWII which were found to be war crimes.

Now you can bluff the moderators by pretending to be offended and pretending to an emotional pain for the things that happened to people you never met before you were born and it appears to be a somewhat successful approach. Contrived hurt and outrage is a common motif to shut down those who recite what Israelis know but do not want others to know about them.

But you raised the issue of the criminal nature of the occupation and I answered you. You presented no rebuttal to any point but rather brought up the Nazis. Now if you are going to say the Nazis committed no crimes during WWII because there is no more reliable evidence than for Israel's actions at least you will be consistent.

When it comes to Israel there is an entire program getting the IDF to speak out about what they did and do to Palestinians and there are videos of their confessions available on the web. Search youtube for them if you are interested. After all, confessions of the perps are considered conclusive by holohuggers.

If you respond please attempt to post something substantive.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Yes, that is why it is called cold blooded murder.

[qimg]http://www.giwersworld.org/images/yassin-4.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.giwersworld.org/images/yassin-3.jpg[/qimg]

Sheik Yassin, a paraplegic former threat to the existence of Israel
​

Yassin was in a wheelchair when he was 12 due to a wrestling accident with his friend.

Didn't stop him from forming Hamas along with Rantissi (who was killed after Yassin), in 1987.

This wheelchair defense doesn't quite cut it.​

 

[bigjelmapro]

Which is an admission of knowingly forcing a Palestinian to take that same risk that the IDF wimps are too cowardly to take themselves. Hiding behind anyone is the act of cowards.

But what can you really expect from garrison troopers?

Still obfuscating two concepts, one of early warning, not used to check booby-trapped houses, and that of checking houses for booby-traps, the latter of which is not the modus operandi of the IDF.

So again, being a lemming and jumping into a booby-trapped house is wimpy/cowardly? Duly noted.

Standard policy for Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. is the use of groups of civilians human shields, as well as protected sites (ie hospitals, schools), with a copious amount of photographic and video evidence, to fire their mortars/missiles:



And you have a few eye-witness reports from groups like B'tselem of a cases I can count on one hand of the IDF's use of a neighbor to check for booby-traps in a house.

Interesting comparison.

 

[bigjelmapro]

It is much more general than that, true. It forbids the use of the people in the occupied territory from being used in any military operation. It does not mention a difference between voluntary and involuntary and the court ridiculed the idea that anything could be voluntary when asked by armed men no matter how polite they may phrase the question.

But you know that.

The court proceedings, of which I listed in detail (and sourced, yay!) and you provided an excerpt from, did differentiate between the use of voluntary and coerced civilian aid. There was a pro and a con to the matter.

And to frame it better than you did, the IDF asking a civilian to enter a premises (and surrounding premises) to ask other civilians to exit the area away from the opposing side of armed men.

Perhaps quoting the actual GC regarding the specifics behind the use of civilians would help your cause. Unfortunately, I don't think it states what you are claiming above.

 

[bigjelmapro]

You be sure to contact the judges in Israel so the next time when they say occupied they make a clear distinction of exactly where it applies. As we know the world makes no such distinction nor does the Israeli courts. So we are left to rely upon your expert legal interpretation of what the court really meant.

"that governed the area previously..." key quote. No need for a degree in law to understand this simple phrase. Peddle some more.

OTOH if you had taken the time to follow the news in your own country you would know your IDF enters the PA administered areas every damned day often leaving the impression that it is just to show they can. Therefore there is no place the IDF does not enter and thus does not control and thus is not occupied.

Quote it. It doesn't and hasn't for a substantial amount of time. But I'm sure with the 'sources' you use, mossad was involved in the Beruit riots a couple days ago, and killed dozens of Palestinian children last night in some unnamed location.

So no rebuttal, moving on.

Why do you Israelis tell so many lies about your country which you know are so easily exposed?

Why do you pretend you've 'exposed' anything simply by stating it as being 'exposed'?

Speaking of the PA police your IDF does not let them enter the parts even your false statements admits are occupied to arrest known criminal Palestinians. You IDF works at making it hard for the PA to keep the peace.

Both the above have been the subject of complaint to George Mitchell. I presume you know who he is no matter what you pretend to answer.

You spoke to the PA police?

The PA police are working hard at not allowing Hamas and, more recently Al Qaida terrorist from gaining influence in the WB. Kudos to them.

 

[Mycroft]

offering to lease 27% of the West Bank for up to 25 years, is not an offer.

but this is exactly what Israel did at Camp David.

Why not?

Can you explain exactly what is so awful about this that it's just assumed to be a deal breaker?

 

[bigjelmapro]

Why not?

Can you explain exactly what is so awful about this that it's just assumed to be a deal breaker?

It isn't an issue. The problem he's having is the concept of the 10 to 25 year period lease and that it was an offer to begin with. What is obviously ignored is the lack of any counter offer from Arafat where it usually takes at least 2 to haggle and hammer out an end to this conflict.

Strangely enough, this is the exact opposite as seen in the 1991 Madrid conferences...

 

[Mycroft]

The occupation must end completely and without condition or exception. That is the minimum and cannot be considered to be any kind of concession.

Rather anything short of that is no more than an excuse to continue the crime of occupation.

Been tried, it failed.

When Israel left Gaza your camp whined that they had wronged the Palestinians by not negotiating their withdrawal and thus depriving the Palestinian Authority of their legitimacy and credibility. And, of course, the violence from Gaza continued.

But in any case, the "occupation" started because Israel was being attacked from these areas. It's perfectly reasonable that they should withdraw with reasonable assurances that the violence will cease.

 

[Mycroft]

It isn't an issue. The problem he's having is the concept of the 10 to 25 year period lease and that it was an offer to begin with. What is obviously ignored is the lack of any counter offer from Arafat where it usually takes at least 2 to haggle and hammer out an end to this conflict.

Strangely enough, this is the exact opposite as seen in the 1991 Madrid conferences...

That's also an issue, perhaps even the more important one. What I'm challenging here is just one of a series of claims from the far left that any one issue constitutes such an egregious offense to Palestinians that they have no choice but to continue to live in the deprivations of war and violence for generation after generation rather than accept it.

I don't know about this leasing proposal, I haven't seen the evidence that it's even true, but if we assume for the sake of argument that it was proposed...so what? I assume that what was proposed is leasing of lands where Israelis are already living, and that extending the lease for 25 years was designed to cushion the economic blow of moving them by spreading it out over an extended period of time. This, to me, sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise that gives Palestinians all the land they claim in the long run, and provided needed capital in the short run, all in "exchange" for land they don't have the use of now anyway.

What's so terrible about that?

To me it just seems like another talking point that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

 

[Mycroft]

Yassin was in a wheelchair when he was 12 due to a wrestling accident with his friend.

Didn't stop him from forming Hamas along with Rantissi (who was killed after Yassin), in 1987.

This wheelchair defense doesn't quite cut it.

It's also kind of offensive to the disabled. Just because he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean he can't further genocidal ambitions. We need to look at peoples abilities and not define them by their disabilities.

 

[Thunder]

Why not?

Can you explain exactly what is so awful about this that it's just assumed to be a deal breaker?

what would have been soo aweful about letting Israel lease 27% of the WB for 25 years??

this is a rhetorical question, right?

 

[Mycroft]

what would have been soo aweful about letting Israel lease 27% of the WB for 25 years??

this is a rhetorical question, right?

Not at all.

You're asserting this as a deal-breaker, so tell us why it's so intolerable. While you're at it, how about some more information?

What lands were being discussed? What are the current uses for the land? How much were the lease payments going to be? What was going to happen with buildings on these lands at the expiration of the lease?

It seems to me these are all relevant issues if you're going to claim that the proposal was so awful and egregious that of course Palestinians were perfectly justified in condemning their children to yet another generation of warfare and privation.

 

[Thunder]

Not at all.

You're asserting this as a deal-breaker, so tell us why it's so intolerable. While you're at it, how about some more information?

#1. I believe any deal giving the Israelis more than 5% of the WB is pretty crappy...but acceptable. But 27%?? that is indeed rediculous and a sick joke.

why? how can anyone honestly expect the Palestinians to be satisfied with only 73% of the West Bank???? its true Borscht-Belt comedy.

#2. I believe a lot of this land would have been in the Jordan Valley. Not sure where the other land would have been.

 

[Mycroft]

#1. I believe any deal giving the Israelis more than 5% of the WB is pretty crappy...but acceptable. But 27%?? that is indeed rediculous and a sick joke.

That's your assertion.

why? how can anyone honestly expect the Palestinians to be satisfied with only 73% of the West Bank???? its true Borscht-Belt comedy.

If Israel is leasing the land, that means it belongs to the Palestinians. They get 100% of the land, plus they get income from the leases.

Seriously, if someone gives you an apartment building, do you get all enraged because there are tenants in the apartments paying you money every month? Do you go around whining that you don't really "own" the space you collect rent for?

#2. I believe a lot of this land would have been in the Jordan Valley. Not sure where the other land would have been.

So...you really have no clue what lands were being discussed or what the terms were?

 

[Thunder]

So...you really have no clue what lands were being discussed or what the terms were?

no, that's your assertion.

and Arafat was right to reject an Israeli offer, calling for Israel to lease 27% of the West Bank, for even 10 years.

The Palestinians have a right to rule themselves, in a viable state, within the great majority of the West Bank. This means at least...90%...with a 10% exchange of Israeli land.

Though how about this? If Israel gets to lease 27% of the WB for 25 years, Palestine gets to lease 27% of Israel, at no charge. Sound good to you?

 

[Mycroft]

no, that's your assertion.

Sure, but it's based on the evidence of your not being able to describe the terms of the proposed leases. What lands are they? What use will they be put to? How much money was offered as rent? Without knowing the terms, you're not in a position to judge.

and Arafat was right to reject an Israeli offer, calling for Israel to lease 27% of the West Bank, for even 10 years.

But you can't say why. Lot's of nations lease lands to other nations and it's no big deal. Why is it so awful in this case?

The Palestinians have a right to rule themselves, in a viable state, within the great majority of the West Bank. This means at least...90%...with a 10% exchange of Israeli land.

Sure, they have a right to rule themselves in a viable state, but the rest of your sentence is just meaningless numbers pulled out of your backside. Does this 27% make "Palestine" non-viable? You don't know because you have no idea what these leases are.

Though how about this? If Israel gets to lease 27% of the WB for 25 years, Palestine gets to lease 27% of Israel, at no charge. Sound good to you?

Again, wouldn't that depend on the terms? What lands are they? What use are they being put to now? What use are the Palestinians proposing? These are the things to be considered if deciding if the deal is good or not.

You're just shooting for a knee-jerk emotional reaction because you had a knee-jerk emotional reaction, and you can't justify it.