I said I find your claim this third rate police is a threat to Israel absurd. I might add I find it a pitiful excuse to continue its criminal occupation.
Never said the police was a threat to Israel. Its the terrorist elements within the WB, be it Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc. who have attacked Israelis in Israel proper and in these settlement blocs. But somehow you interpreted this to mean that I was referring to a threat of traffic police? Nice one.
Once there's a non-belligerency agreement signed and terrorist organizations are quelled in the WB by the PA and the IDF, then there would be no need for Israel to reside, apart from the settlement blocs with the land swaps, in the West bank.
Capiche? Finally?
You justified the occupation because of the threat from the Palestinians in the West Bank. I described that threat correctly. Therefore that is what you consider a threat to the existence of Israel. Why do you not understand the consequences of what you say?
You can keep stating this in many different ways, but I'm still going to ask you to source this, as in where did I state this?
Cease with the fairy tales.
They are criminals because they live in an area under the protection of a military force which is illegally occupying that area. After WWII the penalty was a forced march back to Germany with the clothes on their backs. You did not know that?
Source where an area residing within a voided armistice line that was previously under occupation by another country illegal to reside in.
Read the fine convention some day. Take the risk of learning something.
Learn to source and stop pretending that you've read it yourself
It was the simple murder of criminals. It does not rise to terrorism.
The right to resist occupation is lawful. The right to use deadly force against the occupiers is lawful. Everything the resistance movements did in WWII was retroactively made lawful by international treaty. How did you miss that? Or do you consider the participants in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising to have been criminals too? They invented the grenade in the empty baby carriage trick. And when the Germans caught on and asked to see the baby first they started using their own babies.
Source the laws of war/engagement, Roman statutes, GC, anything that supports the attack against civilians even within what is declared to be within the future Palestinian state? Presumably this will be Judenfrei as well.
Warsaw ghetto now eh? Running thin on weak correlations? This correlation still doesn't miraculously turn civilians into 'lawful targets' either.
You keep pretending like the Geneva convention does not exist yet the entire context of it was to address all the atrocities of Germany during WWII while precluding any exceptions. Sabotage of civilian facilities in Germany with dead civilians was made lawful. So also is killing Israeli civilians when participating in the criminal occupation.
If you know the GC's so well, how about sourcing specifically rather than repeating the same drivel over and over.
Quote where civilians are 'lawful targets'.
So it gets back to the beginning. End the occupation as it has not had any military justification since the peace treaty with Jordan even though it was implemented in a criminal manner at that time because of the criminal squatters.
No we aren't. You simply repeat the same drivel ignoring anything written previously, skipping and hopping over responses to shoot holes through these half-baked responses of yours.
Quite amusing the liberal use of the term, 'criminal' though. Still can't end any form of occupation without an agreement from each party in the conflict, in this case the Israelis and Palestinians.
Provide an example where this hasn't been the case....
