Boycott Israel

[Hollie]

How about Islamic apartheid week in Gaza’istan?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How about Islamic apartheid week in Gaza’istan?

Good idea. Why don't you go there and start one?

 

[Hollie]

How about Islamic apartheid week in Gaza’istan?

Good idea. Why don't you go there and start one?

Islamic terrorists have an agenda contrary to modern, first world societies.

Just ask the non-Islamist communities in Gaza'istan, the Jewish community, for example.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This idea is based on false and/or misleading information → THEN used to publicize and promote a political cause: We call it "propaganda." And nearly all propaganda contains elements of "truth" within it. In this bit of propaganda the initial truth is the application of the "OCCUPIED" but an attempt to suggest the occupation is not over "DISPUTED" territory. The two terms are exclusive in meaning; totally independent.

• Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. •

Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

In the first indictment, the terms "disputed" 'vs' "occupied" improper comparisons.

(COMMENT)

The improper comparison is made between "Terrorism" 'vs' "Resistance." An occupation can be either "belligerent or peaceful." It cannot be both --- and --- the "resistance" can be "lawful" or "unlawful." "Terrorism" is an unlawful means of "resistance;" that fall under the general heading of unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. There are 19 such International Conventions covering the aspects that criminalize and make punishable "by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature" the intentional murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act "constituting participation as an accomplice".

The next improper example is made in reference to "bombing cities" and the concept of "self-defense." While it may sound good to the Anti-Israeli effort; it is totally an unsophisticated approach for the uneducated audience. The "bombing of cities" is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) operating out of densely populated areas (Rule #23 IHL) and the failure to remove military target-able operations out of populated areas (Rule #24 IHL). In fact, this is much closer to an admission that the HoAP “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” (Rule #97 IHL) constitutes a war crime on the part of the HoAP.

The presentation tries to craftily imposes a negative connotation by using "regime" relative to Israel.. THEN it superimposes onto the reality of the security measures are tools to "separate," → "segregate" → and → "discriminate" → against the Arab Palestinian; showing a picture of both a checkpoint and the security barrier. These various concepts are mixed to suggests that there is a connection with "apartheid."

✪ A "regime" can be either good or bad; and even good sometimes and bad at other times.

✪ The implementation of mutually supporting defense and security positions designed to absorb and progressively become stronger to prevent infiltration and operation by HoAP.

√ Yes, the Barrier is used to "separate" peaceful and loyal Israeli citizens from the Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters that constitute the HoAP.

√ This separation is essential to the duty in the protection of Israelis from the likes of the HoAP. It is not segregation in respect to the segregation and apartheid.

√ The "separation" and "segregation" are not the institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Israels) over any other racial group (Arab Palestinians). Israel is the more diversified in terms of racial equality. These measures are they applied with the express intention of maintaining the concept of the Jewish National Home (embedding the JNH with the principles of self-governance, equal rights and self-determination of Israelis) and protected and preserved from the HoAP threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.
​

✪ The presentation attempts to suggest that Israel is NOT a "democracy" but an "apartheid" state. Israel is a parliamentary democracy and has the right right to police and control its borders the very same as any other country. No nation or state is going to support the notion that they may be charged with "apartheid" if they control the borders. Certainly not America or any other Superpower.
​

This is a five year old video produced by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement; but it is still vile, offense and obnoxious propaganda used to incite emotions and stagnate any good will between the two people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This idea is based on false and/or misleading information → THEN used to publicize and promote a political cause: We call it "propaganda." And nearly all propaganda contains elements of "truth" within it. In this bit of propaganda the initial truth is the application of the "OCCUPIED" but an attempt to suggest the occupation is not over "DISPUTED" territory. The two terms are exclusive in meaning; totally independent.

• Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. •

Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

In the first indictment, the terms "disputed" 'vs' "occupied" improper comparisons.

(COMMENT)

The improper comparison is made between "Terrorism" 'vs' "Resistance." An occupation can be either "belligerent or peaceful." It cannot be both --- and --- the "resistance" can be "lawful" or "unlawful." "Terrorism" is an unlawful means of "resistance;" that fall under the general heading of unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. There are 19 such International Conventions covering the aspects that criminalize and make punishable "by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature" the intentional murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act "constituting participation as an accomplice".

The next improper example is made in reference to "bombing cities" and the concept of "self-defense." While it may sound good to the Anti-Israeli effort; it is totally an unsophisticated approach for the uneducated audience. The "bombing of cities" is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) operating out of densely populated areas (Rule #23 IHL) and the failure to remove military target-able operations out of populated areas (Rule #24 IHL). In fact, this is much closer to an admission that the HoAP “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” (Rule #97 IHL) constitutes a war crime on the part of the HoAP.

The presentation tries to craftily imposes a negative connotation by using "regime" relative to Israel.. THEN it superimposes onto the reality of the security measures are tools to "separate," → "segregate" → and → "discriminate" → against the Arab Palestinian; showing a picture of both a checkpoint and the security barrier. These various concepts are mixed to suggests that there is a connection with "apartheid."

✪ A "regime" can be either good or bad; and even good sometimes and bad at other times.

✪ The implementation of mutually supporting defense and security positions designed to absorb and progressively become stronger to prevent infiltration and operation by HoAP.

√ Yes, the Barrier is used to "separate" peaceful and loyal Israeli citizens from the Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters that constitute the HoAP.

√ This separation is essential to the duty in the protection of Israelis from the likes of the HoAP. It is not segregation in respect to the segregation and apartheid.

√ The "separation" and "segregation" are not the institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Israels) over any other racial group (Arab Palestinians). Israel is the more diversified in terms of racial equality. These measures are they applied with the express intention of maintaining the concept of the Jewish National Home (embedding the JNH with the principles of self-governance, equal rights and self-determination of Israelis) and protected and preserved from the HoAP threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.
​

✪ The presentation attempts to suggest that Israel is NOT a "democracy" but an "apartheid" state. Israel is a parliamentary democracy and has the right right to police and control its borders the very same as any other country. No nation or state is going to support the notion that they may be charged with "apartheid" if they control the borders. Certainly not America or any other Superpower.​

This is a five year old video produced by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement; but it is still vile, offense and obnoxious propaganda used to incite emotions and stagnate any good will between the two people.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, so many Israeli talking points.

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Link?

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This idea is based on false and/or misleading information → THEN used to publicize and promote a political cause: We call it "propaganda." And nearly all propaganda contains elements of "truth" within it. In this bit of propaganda the initial truth is the application of the "OCCUPIED" but an attempt to suggest the occupation is not over "DISPUTED" territory. The two terms are exclusive in meaning; totally independent.

• Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907. •

Article 42: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.​

In the first indictment, the terms "disputed" 'vs' "occupied" improper comparisons.

(COMMENT)

The improper comparison is made between "Terrorism" 'vs' "Resistance." An occupation can be either "belligerent or peaceful." It cannot be both --- and --- the "resistance" can be "lawful" or "unlawful." "Terrorism" is an unlawful means of "resistance;" that fall under the general heading of unlawful and intentional use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. There are 19 such International Conventions covering the aspects that criminalize and make punishable "by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature" the intentional murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person, a violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodations, or the means of transport of such person; a threat or attempt to commit such an attack; and an act "constituting participation as an accomplice".

The next improper example is made in reference to "bombing cities" and the concept of "self-defense." While it may sound good to the Anti-Israeli effort; it is totally an unsophisticated approach for the uneducated audience. The "bombing of cities" is a consequence of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) operating out of densely populated areas (Rule #23 IHL) and the failure to remove military target-able operations out of populated areas (Rule #24 IHL). In fact, this is much closer to an admission that the HoAP “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” (Rule #97 IHL) constitutes a war crime on the part of the HoAP.

The presentation tries to craftily imposes a negative connotation by using "regime" relative to Israel.. THEN it superimposes onto the reality of the security measures are tools to "separate," → "segregate" → and → "discriminate" → against the Arab Palestinian; showing a picture of both a checkpoint and the security barrier. These various concepts are mixed to suggests that there is a connection with "apartheid."

✪ A "regime" can be either good or bad; and even good sometimes and bad at other times.

✪ The implementation of mutually supporting defense and security positions designed to absorb and progressively become stronger to prevent infiltration and operation by HoAP.

√ Yes, the Barrier is used to "separate" peaceful and loyal Israeli citizens from the Jihadist, the Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric fighters that constitute the HoAP.

√ This separation is essential to the duty in the protection of Israelis from the likes of the HoAP. It is not segregation in respect to the segregation and apartheid.

√ The "separation" and "segregation" are not the institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group (Israels) over any other racial group (Arab Palestinians). Israel is the more diversified in terms of racial equality. These measures are they applied with the express intention of maintaining the concept of the Jewish National Home (embedding the JNH with the principles of self-governance, equal rights and self-determination of Israelis) and protected and preserved from the HoAP threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel.
​

✪ The presentation attempts to suggest that Israel is NOT a "democracy" but an "apartheid" state. Israel is a parliamentary democracy and has the right right to police and control its borders the very same as any other country. No nation or state is going to support the notion that they may be charged with "apartheid" if they control the borders. Certainly not America or any other Superpower.​

This is a five year old video produced by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement; but it is still vile, offense and obnoxious propaganda used to incite emotions and stagnate any good will between the two people.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, so many Israeli talking points.

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Link?

Do the Arabs have the right to defend their settler colonial projects outside of Arabia, including North Africa and Europe?

When will they be happy with all they already have. 1400 years has been a long and prosperous length of time for the Arab Muslims with all the land they have taken from all of the indigenous people, from all of those areas outside Arabia.

Let us say NO to Mohammad and his followers, once and for all.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For the people that are always screaming about "inherent rights," you sure do miss the basics.

BTW: I would like to read this alleged Israeli Talking Points Paper you are always citing. Where is it?

WOW, so many Israeli talking points.

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The "Right to Self-Defense" is a derivative (concept based on another source and inductive reasoning) involving a societal moral concept. In more modern contemporary times (in the last half century) → the right to life, defined as inherent, conversely implies the "right to defend life." It is the instinctual extension of intuitive understanding that, except in those processes that are socially accepted inherent rights, no matter whether the governing authority of a particular geographical area recognizes it or whether it has been codified as law, it is just as real.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART III Article 6 (Derivative of Article 51, UN Charter inherent right of individual or collective self-defense)

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
​

Self-Defense in not defined or delimited relative to the scope and nature of a dispute. In fact, no definition of the "Right of Self-Defense" is dependent on the nature of the dispute (which belligerent is right or wrong; or whether the concepts of right and wrong are applicable). Concepts of "right and wrong are defined and controlled by society. Inherent rights, as previously stated,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For the people that are always screaming about "inherent rights," you sure do miss the basics.

BTW: I would like to read this alleged Israeli Talking Points Paper you are always citing. Where is it?

WOW, so many Israeli talking points.

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The "Right to Self-Defense" is a derivative (concept based on another source and inductive reasoning) involving a societal moral concept. In more modern contemporary times (in the last half century) → the right to life, defined as inherent, conversely implies the "right to defend life." It is the instinctual extension of intuitive understanding that, except in those processes that are socially accepted inherent rights, no matter whether the governing authority of a particular geographical area recognizes it or whether it has been codified as law, it is just as real.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART III Article 6 (Derivative of Article 51, UN Charter inherent right of individual or collective self-defense)

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
​

Self-Defense in not defined or delimited relative to the scope and nature of a dispute. In fact, no definition of the "Right of Self-Defense" is dependent on the nature of the dispute (which belligerent is right or wrong; or whether the concepts of right and wrong are applicable). Concepts of "right and wrong are defined and controlled by society. Inherent rights, as previously stated,

Most Respectfully,
R

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

For the people that are always screaming about "inherent rights," you sure do miss the basics.

BTW: I would like to read this alleged Israeli Talking Points Paper you are always citing. Where is it?

WOW, so many Israeli talking points.

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The "Right to Self-Defense" is a derivative (concept based on another source and inductive reasoning) involving a societal moral concept. In more modern contemporary times (in the last half century) → the right to life, defined as inherent, conversely implies the "right to defend life." It is the instinctual extension of intuitive understanding that, except in those processes that are socially accepted inherent rights, no matter whether the governing authority of a particular geographical area recognizes it or whether it has been codified as law, it is just as real.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
PART III Article 6 (Derivative of Article 51, UN Charter inherent right of individual or collective self-defense)

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
​

Self-Defense in not defined or delimited relative to the scope and nature of a dispute. In fact, no definition of the "Right of Self-Defense" is dependent on the nature of the dispute (which belligerent is right or wrong; or whether the concepts of right and wrong are applicable). Concepts of "right and wrong are defined and controlled by society. Inherent rights, as previously stated,

Most Respectfully,
R

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

The aggressors have been the Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, Muslim Kurds and Arabs, European Crusaders, Ottoman Turks and the Allies.

The indigenous Jews could hardly defend their land from any one of those conquering invaders.

Not until the 20th century when the chance came to legally recreate their sovereign nation ON their ancient Homeland.

They returned from all over the world to join all the other Jews who never left, or who had returned before them.

ARABS are from ARABIA (Canaan was never called Arabia, so geographically figure out where it is compared to where ancient Canaan, Israel, Judea, Syria Palaestinia is)


JEWS are from Judea.


The truth above is NEVER going to change no matter how much twist and turn is done to prejudice the Jewish people, and Only and Always
.......the Jewish People.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You think of the world and that Region in terms of 16K Color. You're just a little more than B&W and less 320×200 with 256 colors. And you've never even heard of a True Color (HD Millions of Colors).

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

(COMMENT)

The application of terms like "aggressors" and "defenders" are not very helpful in these times.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, they were neither a "true aggressor" or a "true defender." The territory of the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1967 was Jordanian Sovereign Territory and defended by Royal Jordanian Army (RJA).

In 1967, the Royal Jordanian Army (defender prior to first short) opened hostilities on Israel (defender after first shot). Under Article 51, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), sought-out and engaged the Jordanians. The Jordanians began an organized withdraw. If the IDF had pursued the RJA across the Jordan River, then the roles would have been reversed; but the IDF halted and established occupation (of Jordanian Territory, inhabited by Jordanian Citizens) and rear area protection.

In 1988, the Jordanians politically and diplomatically cut all ties with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis had been defenders against the Jordanians - and later the Occupation Force - over the territory.

After the Jordanians abandon the enemy occupied territory (West Bank and Jerusalem), the status of the territory, the inhabitants, and the and the Israelis were undefined; neither aggressor or defender. At that point in time, there was no Palestinian Government and no Palestinian Sovereignty, merely a PLO Representative.

In 1994, two of the belligerents Israel and Jordan, ended their aspect of the 1948-49 War under a ceasefire and Armistice. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was the Jordan River and the Dead Sea; without prejudice to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jerusalem. With that treaty, yet again, the impact was to create a territorial status that had not yet been defined.

The question became, in 1988, when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem into the hands of the IDF Occupation, what change did that make in the status of the territories?

Attempts, such as yours, to over simplify the status of the territories, actually create more problems.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You think of the world and that Region in terms of 16K Color. You're just a little more than B&W and less 320×200 with 256 colors. And you've never even heard of a True Color (HD Millions of Colors).

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

(COMMENT)

The application of terms like "aggressors" and "defenders" are not very helpful in these times.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, they were neither a "true aggressor" or a "true defender." The territory of the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1967 was Jordanian Sovereign Territory and defended by Royal Jordanian Army (RJA).

In 1967, the Royal Jordanian Army (defender prior to first short) opened hostilities on Israel (defender after first shot). Under Article 51, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), sought-out and engaged the Jordanians. The Jordanians began an organized withdraw. If the IDF had pursued the RJA across the Jordan River, then the roles would have been reversed; but the IDF halted and established occupation (of Jordanian Territory, inhabited by Jordanian Citizens) and rear area protection.

In 1988, the Jordanians politically and diplomatically cut all ties with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis had been defenders against the Jordanians - and later the Occupation Force - over the territory.

After the Jordanians abandon the enemy occupied territory (West Bank and Jerusalem), the status of the territory, the inhabitants, and the and the Israelis were undefined; neither aggressor or defender. At that point in time, there was no Palestinian Government and no Palestinian Sovereignty, merely a PLO Representative.

In 1994, two of the belligerents Israel and Jordan, ended their aspect of the 1948-49 War under a ceasefire and Armistice. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was the Jordan River and the Dead Sea; without prejudice to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jerusalem. With that treaty, yet again, the impact was to create a territorial status that had not yet been defined.

The question became, in 1988, when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem into the hands of the IDF Occupation, what change did that make in the status of the territories?

Attempts, such as yours, to over simplify the status of the territories, actually create more problems.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed 50 years of history.

 

[Sixties Fan]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You think of the world and that Region in terms of 16K Color. You're just a little more than B&W and less 320×200 with 256 colors. And you've never even heard of a True Color (HD Millions of Colors).

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

(COMMENT)

The application of terms like "aggressors" and "defenders" are not very helpful in these times.

Relative to the Arab Palestinians, they were neither a "true aggressor" or a "true defender." The territory of the West Bank and Jerusalem in July 1967 was Jordanian Sovereign Territory and defended by Royal Jordanian Army (RJA).

In 1967, the Royal Jordanian Army (defender prior to first short) opened hostilities on Israel (defender after first shot). Under Article 51, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), sought-out and engaged the Jordanians. The Jordanians began an organized withdraw. If the IDF had pursued the RJA across the Jordan River, then the roles would have been reversed; but the IDF halted and established occupation (of Jordanian Territory, inhabited by Jordanian Citizens) and rear area protection.

In 1988, the Jordanians politically and diplomatically cut all ties with the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Israelis had been defenders against the Jordanians - and later the Occupation Force - over the territory.

After the Jordanians abandon the enemy occupied territory (West Bank and Jerusalem), the status of the territory, the inhabitants, and the and the Israelis were undefined; neither aggressor or defender. At that point in time, there was no Palestinian Government and no Palestinian Sovereignty, merely a PLO Representative.

In 1994, two of the belligerents Israel and Jordan, ended their aspect of the 1948-49 War under a ceasefire and Armistice. The boundary between Israel and Jordan was the Jordan River and the Dead Sea; without prejudice to the inhabitants of the West Bank and Jerusalem. With that treaty, yet again, the impact was to create a territorial status that had not yet been defined.

The question became, in 1988, when the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem into the hands of the IDF Occupation, what change did that make in the status of the territories?

Attempts, such as yours, to over simplify the status of the territories, actually create more problems.

Most Respectfully,
R

You missed 50 years of history.

Getting way off topic and discussing the same issue again and again.
In all the threads.

So, why are some Muslims and Christians Boycotting Israel ?

 

[Shusha]

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Israel, as a sovereign nation, has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens and maintain peace and security.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel youth delegation returns from Qatar with handball tournament trophy

 

[Shusha]

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

Rocco has the right of it legally. But I will add my two cents to his ideas.

The essence of the conflict is the right to self-determination and how that intersects with the right to territory. In order to have self-determination (meaning self-governance and sovereignty) a peoples must have some sort of territory on which to express it. But the exact location and extent of that territory is fluid and negotiable.

Neither peoples have an absolute "right" to a specific square meter of ground. (The holy places being an exception, imo).

Thus, ideas of "aggressor" and "defender" can only be based on which peoples are defending their right to self-determination. The consistent denial of Jewish self-determination in Arab Palestinian thought makes them the aggressors.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ et al,

Yes, there is very little question that the central theme that the Israelis have always revolved around is that of "Self-Determination;" the key component necessary to establish a Jewish National Home.

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

The essence of the conflict is the right to self-determination and how that intersects with the right to territory. In order to have self-determination (meaning self-governance and sovereignty) a peoples must have some sort of territory on which to express it. But the exact location and extent of that territory is fluid and negotiable.

(COMMENT)

When you strip away all the political rhetoric, what you have left is the hot inner core that forms the nucleus of Sovereignty and Self-Determination. Most all the opponents to the Israeli Right of Self-Determination use arguments that stick like cellophane to (little substance that is transparent):

✪ The "mere semblance of legal right."
✪ The pretense or appearance of the right used to shield real-world unwillingness or opposition to allow an actual implementation of the Self-Determination.​

It is well worth the question:

✪ If the Jewish had not declared independence, would the regional Arab components allowed them to survive?
✪ Given the advancement in Human Development by the Arab League, would the world have been better-off if it allowed the Arab League to have destroyed the Jewish National Home?​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Boycotting Israel 101

 

[P F Tinmore]

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Israel, as a sovereign nation, has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens and maintain peace and security.

Deflection. That wasn't the question.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ et al,

Yes, there is very little question that the central theme that the Israelis have always revolved around is that of "Self-Determination;" the key component necessary to establish a Jewish National Home.

You are really confused as to who is the aggressor and who is the defender.

The essence of the conflict is the right to self-determination and how that intersects with the right to territory. In order to have self-determination (meaning self-governance and sovereignty) a peoples must have some sort of territory on which to express it. But the exact location and extent of that territory is fluid and negotiable.

(COMMENT)

When you strip away all the political rhetoric, what you have left is the hot inner core that forms the nucleus of Sovereignty and Self-Determination. Most all the opponents to the Israeli Right of Self-Determination use arguments that stick like cellophane to (little substance that is transparent):

✪ The "mere semblance of legal right."
✪ The pretense or appearance of the right used to shield real-world unwillingness or opposition to allow an actual implementation of the Self-Determination.​

It is well worth the question:

✪ If the Jewish had not declared independence, would the regional Arab components allowed them to survive?
✪ Given the advancement in Human Development by the Arab League, would the world have been better-off if it allowed the Arab League to have destroyed the Jewish National Home?​

Most Respectfully,
R

✪ If the Jewish had not declared independence, would the regional Arab components allowed them to survive?

Allowed what to survive?

 

[Hollie]

Does Israel have the right to defend its settler colonial projects?

Israel, as a sovereign nation, has not only the right but the obligation to protect its citizens and maintain peace and security.

Deflection. That wasn't the question.

Deflection.

You presume an entitlement to Islamic settler colonialism. The inertia of history shows that the Jewish people were able to overcome Islamic fascism and build a successful society.

Arabs-Moslems on the other hand, could not and are left to beg at the hand of a western funded welfare fraud.