Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, tricky - tricky. You changed the context from a "Zoinist" invasion of Palestine, to an Allied Invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a Joint British and French Military Administration which was the first of the occupation phases established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917
until the Civil Administration; with the surrender and demilitarization of all OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander. (Clause #16 Mudros Armistice) The OETA remained as the principle administration until the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the OETA regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. (The Treaty of Lausanne ) The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate).

Palestine was an undefined territory and not a Political Subdivision within the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not invaded as a political sovereignty, but as a military engagement and movement to contact in pursuit of retreating Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces. Allied Forces where required to move forward and replace Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces that surrendered to the closest Allied Command pursuant to Clause 16 of the Mudros Armistice.

Again, it was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that was invaded and not the undefined territory under the regional name of "Palestine."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the Allied Powers and Turkey; and went into force on 6 August 1924, on officially deposited in Paris. Great Britain was the last of the Principle Allied Powers to ratify the treaty on 16 July 1924.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Jordan went through a series of steps.

In May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. From that time forward, there had been a continuous prsence in Jordan of British Military Advisors until well after the 1949 Armistices; and even beyond..

This is not accurate at all. Even after the Treaty of Alliance (1946) His Majesty The King (UK) recognised Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. A further treaty with Britain was executed in March 1948, under which all restrictions on sovereignty were removed, although limited British base and transit rights in Transjordan continued, as did the British subsidy that paid for the Arab Legion.

I don't have the capacity for clairvoyance. But I would venture to say that the the Arab League left enough bread crumbs that even a blind man could determine that the Arabs would initiate a conflict should the Jewish National Home declare independence..

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is a stretch. Again, I'm not clairvoyant. In 1942, the Jewish Agency came under increased pressure for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East.

What 30 year period are we discussing?

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

(COMMENT)

There was an arms embargo. What is this --- more whining?

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

(COMMENT)

The greater the intensity of attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the more likely there will be an adverse response by the Jewish Community. Especially after WWII, there was a growing number of Holocaust Survivors as well as the Survivors of the purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, and so many atrocities ---

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, "Zachor" (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will serve as a guide for the future. The second, "Never Again," is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish People's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of ther brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. SOURCE: "Never Again" Is Not Just a Slogan

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

How does that relate to or change my post?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

Yet, being Of the jewish faith is the only criteria for being granted citizenship of the israeli entity currently occupying Palestine

Palestine?

As an autonomous state...

Doesn't exist...

Never has...

Never will...

The denizen-losers (Muslim-Arabs) of the two postage-stamp -sized slices of land that comprise Rump Palestine need to relocate.

They're in-the-way, and time is running out.

They'd be better off purchasing a slice of the Egyptian desert and trying to make a go of it there.

There's nothing for them - and absolutely no future - where they are now.

Take your families out of there now, while you still can.

Leave.

Live.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

Yes they did under the LoN Mandate of palestine and the UN charter along with many international laws of the time.

Why should we give you a link when you refuse to produce any links to support your thousands of claims ?

I provide links to prove my point but you keep marching on with Israel's lies like a good little boy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

 

[Shusha]

Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.​

It is not all people. It is all peoples. Why are you changing who has rights?

And here begins the justifications for why the Jewish people, of all the people in the world, do not have the inherent, inalienable, human rights that ALL OTHERS have. Because the Jewish people are a "people" but they are not a "peoples".

Btw, I have asked you before to define "peoples" and you ignored me.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

People, Peoples, I don't care. You can quibble all you want. I will admit (stand corrected) that the Charter says " principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

I'll talk about the central issue. My implication was that all humans have that right, and all collection of related humans by ethnic, racial, religious, and culture.

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.​

It is not all people. It is all peoples. Why are you changing who has rights?

(COMMENT)

Your implication questioned whether or not the Israelis (Jewish Agency and Provisional Government) and all they represented --- had the "Right of Self-Determination."

I say they do. I say that there is no Customary International Humanitarian Law that denies the Israelis that self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, tricky - tricky. You changed the context from a "Zoinist" invasion of Palestine, to an Allied Invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

There was no invading army into enemy territory to pillage and plunder.

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a Joint British and French Military Administration which was the first of the occupation phases established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917
until the Civil Administration; with the surrender and demilitarization of all OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander. (Clause #16 Mudros Armistice) The OETA remained as the principle administration until the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the OETA regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. (The Treaty of Lausanne ) The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate).

Palestine was an undefined territory and not a Political Subdivision within the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not invaded as a political sovereignty, but as a military engagement and movement to contact in pursuit of retreating Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces. Allied Forces where required to move forward and replace Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces that surrendered to the closest Allied Command pursuant to Clause 16 of the Mudros Armistice.

Again, it was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that was invaded and not the undefined territory under the regional name of "Palestine."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the Allied Powers and Turkey; and went into force on 6 August 1924, on officially deposited in Paris. Great Britain was the last of the Principle Allied Powers to ratify the treaty on 16 July 1924.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Jordan went through a series of steps.

In May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. From that time forward, there had been a continuous prsence in Jordan of British Military Advisors until well after the 1949 Armistices; and even beyond..

This is not accurate at all. Even after the Treaty of Alliance (1946) His Majesty The King (UK) recognised Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. A further treaty with Britain was executed in March 1948, under which all restrictions on sovereignty were removed, although limited British base and transit rights in Transjordan continued, as did the British subsidy that paid for the Arab Legion.

I don't have the capacity for clairvoyance. But I would venture to say that the the Arab League left enough bread crumbs that even a blind man could determine that the Arabs would initiate a conflict should the Jewish National Home declare independence..

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is a stretch. Again, I'm not clairvoyant. In 1942, the Jewish Agency came under increased pressure for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East.

What 30 year period are we discussing?

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

(COMMENT)

There was an arms embargo. What is this --- more whining?

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

(COMMENT)

The greater the intensity of attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the more likely there will be an adverse response by the Jewish Community. Especially after WWII, there was a growing number of Holocaust Survivors as well as the Survivors of the purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, and so many atrocities ---

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, "Zachor" (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will serve as a guide for the future. The second, "Never Again," is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish People's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of ther brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. SOURCE: "Never Again" Is Not Just a Slogan

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

How does that relate to or change my post?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

IOW, you have nothing.

That would be you which is why you tout the same islamonazi lies and propaganda all the time. No evidence from any unbiased source or from the UN archives, just muslims giving out islamic talking points

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.​

It is not all people. It is all peoples. Why are you changing who has rights?

Why are you denying that the Jews have the self same rights as the arab muslims ?

Why are you denying the Jews the support of international laws whenthey go against islamonazi propaganda

Why are you LYING so much to attack the Jews when the truth is known.

The only person on here changing who has rights is you as shown by your posts that manipulate just one word to alter their meaning so you can be an anti semitic racist POS

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Ah, tricky - tricky. You changed the context from a "Zoinist" invasion of Palestine, to an Allied Invasion of the Ottoman Empire.

There was, but not in the classical sense. Britain was the occupying power in Palestine from 1917 until the Treaty of Lausenne. Then Britain changed the name, but not the status, from occupier to Mandate. There was no visible invasion as Britain already had military control of the territory.

(COMMENT)

The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) was a Joint British and French Military Administration which was the first of the occupation phases established with headquarters in Jerusalem at the end of 1917
until the Civil Administration; with the surrender and demilitarization of all OttomanEmpire/Turkish Republic garrisons in Hejaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied commander. (Clause #16 Mudros Armistice) The OETA remained as the principle administration until the decisions made by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo on the 25th April, 1920. Shortly afterwards, on the 1st July, 1920, the OETA regime was replaced by a civil administration under a High Commission. (The Treaty of Lausanne ) The northern frontier of Palestine was determined in accordance with an Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its eastern frontier by virtue of the recognition, in 1923, of the existence of an independent Government in Transjordan (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate).

Palestine was an undefined territory and not a Political Subdivision within the Ottoman Empire. Palestine was not invaded as a political sovereignty, but as a military engagement and movement to contact in pursuit of retreating Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces. Allied Forces where required to move forward and replace Ottoman Empire/Turkish Forces that surrendered to the closest Allied Command pursuant to Clause 16 of the Mudros Armistice.

Again, it was the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic that was invaded and not the undefined territory under the regional name of "Palestine."

The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the Allied Powers and Turkey; and went into force on 6 August 1924, on officially deposited in Paris. Great Britain was the last of the Principle Allied Powers to ratify the treaty on 16 July 1924.

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Transjordan, it withdrew is forces leaving a handful of advisors behind. That was in line with the LoN Covenant.

(COMMENT)

Jordan went through a series of steps.

In May 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. From that time forward, there had been a continuous prsence in Jordan of British Military Advisors until well after the 1949 Armistices; and even beyond..

This is not accurate at all. Even after the Treaty of Alliance (1946) His Majesty The King (UK) recognised Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. A further treaty with Britain was executed in March 1948, under which all restrictions on sovereignty were removed, although limited British base and transit rights in Transjordan continued, as did the British subsidy that paid for the Arab Legion.

I don't have the capacity for clairvoyance. But I would venture to say that the the Arab League left enough bread crumbs that even a blind man could determine that the Arabs would initiate a conflict should the Jewish National Home declare independence..

When Britain changed from occupier to Mandate in Palestine it maintained its military force. This was evidence that they planned on pulling some shit that was affirmed by their actions over the next thirty years.

(COMMENT)

Well, that is a stretch. Again, I'm not clairvoyant. In 1942, the Jewish Agency came under increased pressure for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East.

What 30 year period are we discussing?

Over those thirty years, Britain allowed the Zionists to build their military. At the same time the British kept the Palestinians disarmed while arresting, exiling or killing their leadership.

(COMMENT)

There was an arms embargo. What is this --- more whining?

When the Zionists attacked Palestine before the 1948 war there was no apparent invasion because their military was already in house.

(COMMENT)

The greater the intensity of attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, the more likely there will be an adverse response by the Jewish Community. Especially after WWII, there was a growing number of Holocaust Survivors as well as the Survivors of the purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, and so many atrocities ---

Following the Holocaust, two phrases stand out above all others as concrete universal Jewish resolutions. The first, "Zachor" (to remember), is to ensure that the past will never be forgotten and its memory will serve as a guide for the future. The second, "Never Again," is not limited to the horrors of a particular time or place, nor by extent or methods, but rather it symbolizes the Jewish People's collective resolve to never stand by the blood of ther brethren and to never allow innocents to be brutalized for the crime of being Jewish. SOURCE: "Never Again" Is Not Just a Slogan

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so?

How does that relate to or change my post?

It shows it to be your usual pack of islamonazi lies and propaganda

Palestine?

As an autonomous state...

Doesn't exist...

Never has...

Never will...

The denizen-losers (Muslim-Arabs) of the two postage-stamp -sized slices of land that comprise Rump Palestine need to relocate.

They're in-the-way, and time is running out.

They'd be better off purchasing a slice of the Egyptian desert and trying to make a go of it there.

There's nothing for them - and absolutely no future - where they are now.

Take your families out of there now, while you still can.

Leave.

Live.

More BS Israeli talking points.

The rights of a people do not require statehood.

That's more excuses for Islamist ineptitude and incompetence.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination within the context of establishing an independent state. Arabs-Moslems could not muster the ability to do so and have instead chosen to scratch out a comfortable existence begging at the hand of a dedicated UN welfare agency.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

Yes they did under the LoN Mandate of palestine and the UN charter along with many international laws of the time.

Why should we give you a link when you refuse to produce any links to support your thousands of claims ?

I provide links to prove my point but you keep marching on with Israel's lies like a good little boy.

WRONG you promote islamonazi propaganda and then sulk when it is shown to be just that. You have not once proved that a nation od palestine existed prior to 1988, yet still run with the LIE. You have not provided the maps delineating the borders of the nation of palestine, yet still run with the LIE that the mandate of palestines borders are the ones granted by a non existent treaty in 1923. Your constant use of the islamonazi treatise on the validity of palestine is laughable and stupid when you know the author has twisted the words to suit islamonazi propaganda.

WHEN ASKED FOR LINKS YOU RUN AWAY BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE SAME ARGUMENTS WILL DESTROY YOUR LINKS AND SHOW YOU AS A COMPLETE MORON.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

The Israelis chose to exercise their right of self determination...​

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

Which also shows that you dont give a damn about the Jews rights as you deny they exist all the time. And the group you support and defend have no respect for any laws giving anyone else but islamonazi's any rights.

Until the muslims are forced into giving others their legal rights dont try and put the blame on the Jews, it wont work going on your track record of LIES and BLOOD LIBELS without any evidence to support your claims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

Do you mean the Israeli Charter?

Nobody else uses it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

​

Did they have the right to self determination in Palestine?

Link?

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

Which also shows that you dont give a damn about the Jews rights as you deny they exist all the time. And the group you support and defend have no respect for any laws giving anyone else but islamonazi's any rights.

Until the muslims are forced into giving others their legal rights dont try and put the blame on the Jews, it wont work going on your track record of LIES and BLOOD LIBELS without any evidence to support your claims.

Not true. Listen to anyone anywhere in BDS and they all call for equal rights for the Jews.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

Do you mean the Israeli Charter?

Nobody else uses it.

Pleading ignorance and denial won't help you here. In both words and actions, the Islamist terrorists in Hamas and Fatah abide by the Islamo-fascist principles of the Hamas Charter. It has never been repudiated by your Islamic terrorist heroes.

What a shame that you believe taqiyya is going to be an effective tactic for lies and deceit.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

Do you mean the Israeli Charter?

Nobody else uses it.

Pleading ignorance and denial won't help you here. In both words and actions, the Islamist terrorists in Hamas and Fatah abide by the Islamo-fascist principles of the Hamas Charter. It has never been repudiated by your Islamic terrorist heroes.

What a shame that you believe taqiyya is going to be an effective tactic for lies and deceit.

Hamas is a conflict driven organization. Remove the conflict and they will melt away like ice cream in August.

If there was peace would anyone in Israel vote for nutandyahoo?

 

[Hollie]

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

Do you mean the Israeli Charter?

Nobody else uses it.

Pleading ignorance and denial won't help you here. In both words and actions, the Islamist terrorists in Hamas and Fatah abide by the Islamo-fascist principles of the Hamas Charter. It has never been repudiated by your Islamic terrorist heroes.

What a shame that you believe taqiyya is going to be an effective tactic for lies and deceit.

Hamas is a conflict driven organization. Remove the conflict and they will melt away like ice cream in August.

If there was peace would anyone in Israel vote for nutandyahoo?

Nonsense. The Hamas Charter clearly refutes your unsupported and unsubstantiated apologetics.

Your refusal to be honest about Arabs-Moslems voting to put Hamas in a position of authority is no reason for anyone else to accept your nonsense.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

That's odd. When do civilized people (peoples) abide by such fascist ideologies as delineated in the Hamas Charter?

Do you mean the Israeli Charter?

Nobody else uses it.

Apart from you, team palestine, hamas, gaza and islamonazi terrorists. I have not seen any denial of the hamas charter. Or for that matter of the palestinian charter

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is really kind of strange.

The question should be, can you (or any other Arab Palestinian) deny the "Right of Self-determination" for any peoples?

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.

Customarily, a people exercise "self-determination" at their discretion. Either what they do is accepted, or --- it is denied by some other party. At that point, either the people capitulate to the other party, or they engage on conflict.

In the case of conflict, it is a decisive victory answers the question.

(COMMENT)

Link, --- completely unnecessary. OH, there are links to the UN Charter 1945 and beyond Open Discussions of the 3d Committee (2013). But they are totally unnecessary. Either you believe that everyone has the "Right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't. Either you believe that all people have the "right of Self-Determination," --- or --- they don't.

The Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee sought to deny the determination of the Israeli people to establish the Jewish National Home. A "War of Independence" was fought, and the outcome was the establishment of a Jewish National Home in the form of the State of Israel. Oddly enough, the mere fact that the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee opening hostilities resulted in the Armistice Lines forming the outline of today's modern Israel. The post-War (1948-49) Israel was larger than that envisioned by the Jewish State as recommended and adopted. This is because all war have inherent risks involved. This to, is a matter of self-determination on the part of the Hostile Arab League, and the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee.

(DILEMMA)

The Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine, which insisted that they had the right to ignored the Articles of the UN Charter on self-determination and use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence, NOW insist that Israel return to the Hostile Arab Palestine that which was lost through the act of aggression by Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee, and today's Hostile Arab Palestine. The Hostile Arab Palestinian, which refused to establish themselves, and allowed the Hostile Arab League, the allies of the Hostile Arab Higher Committee on their behalf, are now dissatisfied with the outcome and which to keep the embers of the 1948-49 War burning.

No "link" is going to settle the difference. Either the Hostile Arab Palestinian wishes to opt for a continuation of the conflict, or it wishes to pursue the pathways towards peace. BUT they cannot reset the clock. What they have done, is done, already etched into to history. The fact that they have openly been an incubator for those Hostile Arab Palestinians that wish pursue premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets (innocent civilians).

Finally, a part of the self-determination of the the Hostile Arab Palestinian is to accept the consequences of their actions taken in their high level of culpability they induce upon their general population aiding and abetting Hostile Arab Palestinians in the conduct of kidnapping, murder, hijackings, suicide bombings and the open targeting and attacking civilians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

Which also shows that you dont give a damn about the Jews rights as you deny they exist all the time. And the group you support and defend have no respect for any laws giving anyone else but islamonazi's any rights.

Until the muslims are forced into giving others their legal rights dont try and put the blame on the Jews, it wont work going on your track record of LIES and BLOOD LIBELS without any evidence to support your claims.

Not true. Listen to anyone anywhere in BDS and they all call for equal rights for the Jews.

So any Jew in the world can have the same rights as any palestinian in the world, can bear arms against arab muslims. Can build synagogues higher than arab muslim houses, can ride a white horse, can wear white clothing. Can rape an arab muslim girl and claim her child is a Jew, can live in peace in their 22% of palestine without fear of attack by arab muslims ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The idea of a "right" only is relevant if someone is going to enforce it. A "right" with no support or defense" is no "right" at all.​

So you believe that might makes right.

You must be an old government person. You people think funny like that.

BTW, Montevideo disagrees with you.

So how will you enforce your alleged rights without the force to back you up. Just saying these are my rights and I demand you grant them to me will result in a bloody nose and a call to " make me "

That shows Israel's respect for the laws that civilized people abide by.

Which also shows that you dont give a damn about the Jews rights as you deny they exist all the time. And the group you support and defend have no respect for any laws giving anyone else but islamonazi's any rights.

Until the muslims are forced into giving others their legal rights dont try and put the blame on the Jews, it wont work going on your track record of LIES and BLOOD LIBELS without any evidence to support your claims.

Not true. Listen to anyone anywhere in BDS and they all call for equal rights for the Jews.

So any Jew in the world can have the same rights as any palestinian in the world, can bear arms against arab muslims. Can build synagogues higher than arab muslim houses, can ride a white horse, can wear white clothing. Can rape an arab muslim girl and claim her child is a Jew, can live in peace in their 22% of palestine without fear of attack by arab muslims ?

Can rape an arab muslim girl and claim her child is a Jew,..

You are just shoveling shit.

You know that Jewishness is passed down by the mother.

 

[SAYIT]

Hamas is a conflict driven organization. Remove the conflict and they will melt away like ice cream in August...

Yeah, because vicious Islamist violence and terrorism is such a rarity in the Arab/Muslim World.

Specifically (from the charter that TinHorn claims to be irrelevant):

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

Comment: Islam is an obliterator of cultures and people who do not follow its viciously oppressive, misogynistic, ignorance-embracing precepts.

"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."

Comment: A religious war with the specific aim of eliminating Israel.

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews)."

Comment: The purpose of Islam is to kill the Jews.

"It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Moslem generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis."

Comment: Call for religious war. Vicious Hamas aggression against the Jew is part and parcel of Islam, "The Religion of Peace."