BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you are confused in your application of the law. It is the Arabs that either made direct threats to attack --- or --- actually made an attack. By definition, they are the aggressor (albeit unsuccessful aggressors).

It is my understanding that colonial powers do not have a right to aggression against a dependent people.

(COMMENT)

First, Israel is not a colonial power. It is not listed as a colonial power and no Arab Territory anywhere in the Middle East is considered a colonial holding. It has settlements that are authorized under a joint Israeli-Palestinian Agreement under the Oslo II Accords [Area "C" (full Israeli civil and security control)]; .

Second, Israel made no act of aggression against any Arab Palestinian Sovereignty. In 1967, the West Bank was under the sovereign control of the Jordanians, and the Gaza Strip was under the Military Governorship of Egypt. Both of those issue were resolved, independently by Treaty.

Third, Israel has had the right of self-defense from acts of war, Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, that threaten the peace and security of the Israeli People.

The act of aggression in 1948 (Arab League on mass attacks first), 1967 (Egypt push UN Emergency Force out of the buffer zone and rush the Egyptian Army forward to stage for assault, and Jordan opens up an artillery barrage), and 1973 (surprise attack by multiple Arab League nations), were on the part of the Arab League and the associate Arab Palestinians combatants. The members of the Arab League – used an armed force (or threatened and intimidated the use of an armed force) against the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Israel --- manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations – was committed.

The territories, often referred to as the territory occupied since 1967, were taken as they were overrun by advancing Israeli Forces in pursuit of Arab aggressor forces in retreat.

Most Respectfully,
R

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

 

[Shusha]

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Paul... This is just ambiguous double speak.

• When was the colonization (time frame)?
• What sovereignty was colonized?
  
• Where was the colonization (location)?
• Who was the colonial power?
• Why was the colonization effected?

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

(COMMENT)

There is always a way forward ad a path towards a peaceful resolution.

The continued unsubstantiated claims of subjugation and colonialism is merely rhetoric to fan the embers of violence.

I do not expect the Arab Palestinian who has been subject of a constant bombardment over three generations of Arab Palestinian incitement to Jihadism, Deadly Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, to accept and embrace the Principles of Settlement by Peaceful Means of Disputes between States." I do not even expect the Arab Palestinians to understand the historical outcomes that have lead to the absolute need for Israel to establish a minimum set of defensible borders. These notiions are all too complex for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to logically grasp and fold into a workable solution.

In fact, I do think that the HoAP only knows the way of the parasite and violent behaviors given the history of corruption, past practices and behaviors; only looking for a justification (of any sort) to incite and promote further violence. They are not actually looking for a workable solutions or cooperative initiatives.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Woooo, slow-up and step back a bit.

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

(COMMENT)

The phrase "voluntary individual migration (actually return)" is actually words of description for "immigration." All countries have laws and regulations pertaining to "the actions of a non-citizen coming to live permanently in a foreign country" (AKA: Immigration). All of which is domestic law, beyond the reach of the international community.

Part of the concept behind Sovereign Equality is (√) that each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; and (√) that the individualism of the State is respected; as well as its territorial integrity. The backbone and ballistic armor is the prohibition against the intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state Article 2(7), UN Charter.

Once sovereignty is recognized (recognition is unconditional and irrevocable) and actually established, the domestic matters are beyond the reach of external powers. (Article 6, Convention of Rights and Duties of States). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (entry into force 23 March 1976), was carrefully worded to insure that the Covenant conflict with Sovereignty and the Charter.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

No matter how you frame it → "But that is not what happened" → the international covenant is specific: except those which are provided by law, (immigration law) sets the tone.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

Where is it found anywhere in international law that "what happened" is an act of aggression (war)?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Woooo, slow-up and step back a bit.

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

(COMMENT)

The phrase "voluntary individual migration (actually return)" is actually words of description for "immigration." All countries have laws and regulations pertaining to "the actions of a non-citizen coming to live permanently in a foreign country" (AKA: Immigration). All of which is domestic law, beyond the reach of the international community.

Part of the concept behind Sovereign Equality is (√) that each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; and (√) that the individualism of the State is respected; as well as its territorial integrity. The backbone and ballistic armor is the prohibition against the intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state Article 2(7), UN Charter.

Once sovereignty is recognized (recognition is unconditional and irrevocable) and actually established, the domestic matters are beyond the reach of external powers. (Article 6, Convention of Rights and Duties of States). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (entry into force 23 March 1976), was carrefully worded to insure that the Covenant conflict with Sovereignty and the Charter.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

No matter how you frame it → "But that is not what happened" → the international covenant is specific: except those which are provided by law, (immigration law) sets the tone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

 

[Shusha]

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

As usual, you are projecting. It is you and Team Palestine which keep rejecting rights for one side. The "people in Palestine" are really TWO peoples - the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples.

The Jewish peoples also have the right to self-determination without external interference (you know, like other Arab countries invading their sovereign territory); the right to independence and sovereignty (including independence from the other peoples) and territorial integrity.

 

[rylah]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Woooo, slow-up and step back a bit.

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

(COMMENT)

The phrase "voluntary individual migration (actually return)" is actually words of description for "immigration." All countries have laws and regulations pertaining to "the actions of a non-citizen coming to live permanently in a foreign country" (AKA: Immigration). All of which is domestic law, beyond the reach of the international community.

Part of the concept behind Sovereign Equality is (√) that each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; and (√) that the individualism of the State is respected; as well as its territorial integrity. The backbone and ballistic armor is the prohibition against the intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state Article 2(7), UN Charter.

Once sovereignty is recognized (recognition is unconditional and irrevocable) and actually established, the domestic matters are beyond the reach of external powers. (Article 6, Convention of Rights and Duties of States). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (entry into force 23 March 1976), was carrefully worded to insure that the Covenant conflict with Sovereignty and the Charter.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

No matter how you frame it → "But that is not what happened" → the international covenant is specific: except those which are provided by law, (immigration law) sets the tone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

This is of course a strawman argument, from the sentence.

But let me address the "external interference" allegation.
Political Zionism was supported by Jews from around the world, but they were advised and directed by the Jewish families from within Ottoman Palestine. The family that actually directed the generous baron, on how and where to invest and develop in Palestine, immigrated there long before Britain and King Faisal I of Iraq inspired the idea of an independent Arab state.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I never said any such thing. This is just you way of attempting to force a defense.

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

(COMMENT)

First, Ive consistently said that the Arab Palestinians have the very same rights as Israel; BUT they don't have any exclusive right or special privileges.

Your resolution does not actually say anything special. All countries have those exact same rights. Theoretically, the phrase "all people in Palestine" includes the Israelis. Palestine is just a geographic location, not a Political Subdivision. Remember, the State of Palestine did NOT exist in 1974 when Resolution A/RES/3236 (XXIX) (22 NOV 74) was passed; the Palestinians would not declare independence for 14 Years.

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

Nor was the State of Palestine in existence when Resolution A/RES/37/43 3 DEC 1982 was adopted.

Reaffirming the importance of the universal realization of the right of
peoples to self-determination, national sovereignty and territorial integrity
and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples
as imperatives for the full enjoyment of all human rights,
​

As far as my response being long, it is to make very clear that I am not being ambiguous. When you say "Palestinians,," just how in the hell are you talking about? That is like say Appalachia; which is in a dozen states. It is a regional component to the Levant. Even UN Resolution A/RES/67/19 (14 DEC 12) does not actually designate the State of Palestine. It actuallly says (read it carefully) among other things:

Decides to accord to Palestine non-member observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;

You are not actually presenting a case for the Palestinians; whoever you assume them to be. In fact, I would be interested in the definition you use as to who Palestinians are!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

As usual, you are projecting. It is you and Team Palestine which keep rejecting rights for one side. The "people in Palestine" are really TWO peoples - the Arab peoples and the Jewish peoples.

The Jewish peoples also have the right to self-determination without external interference (you know, like other Arab countries invading their sovereign territory); the right to independence and sovereignty (including independence from the other peoples) and territorial integrity.

Do you have any UN resolutions or other documentation to back that up?

 

[rylah]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Woooo, slow-up and step back a bit.

Colonization was the initial aggression.

People do not get colonized voluntarily.

The Jewish people certainly didn't get invaded and colonized voluntarily.

But where is it found in international law that voluntary individual migration (actually return) is an act of aggression?

It is not. But that is not what happened.

(COMMENT)

The phrase "voluntary individual migration (actually return)" is actually words of description for "immigration." All countries have laws and regulations pertaining to "the actions of a non-citizen coming to live permanently in a foreign country" (AKA: Immigration). All of which is domestic law, beyond the reach of the international community.

Part of the concept behind Sovereign Equality is (√) that each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; and (√) that the individualism of the State is respected; as well as its territorial integrity. The backbone and ballistic armor is the prohibition against the intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state Article 2(7), UN Charter.

Once sovereignty is recognized (recognition is unconditional and irrevocable) and actually established, the domestic matters are beyond the reach of external powers. (Article 6, Convention of Rights and Duties of States). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (entry into force 23 March 1976), was carrefully worded to insure that the Covenant conflict with Sovereignty and the Charter.

Article 12

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

No matter how you frame it → "But that is not what happened" → the international covenant is specific: except those which are provided by law, (immigration law) sets the tone.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your basic problem, Rocco, is that you believe that the Palestinians do not have rights. Then you make these looooooong posts based on false premise.

As "a people" who have Palestinian nationality and citizenship inside a territory defined by international borders, the Palestinians have the standard list of basic human rights. These rights have been reaffirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

• The right to self determination without external interference.
• The right to independence and sovereignty.
• The right to territorial integrity.

And the UN says "the people in Palestine" with no mention of a government or a state. Some say that because the Palestinians never had a state, (opinion) they don't have any rights. That is not how it works.

This is of course a strawman argument, from the sentence.

But let me address the "external interference" allegation.
Political Zionism was supported by Jews from around the world, but they were advised and directed by the Jewish families from within Ottoman Palestine. The family that actually directed the generous baron, on how and where to invest and develop in Palestine, immigrated there long before Britain and King Faisal I of Iraq inspired the idea of an independent Arab state.

Also, due to dire situation of the Jewish community in Palestine ,they were always in need of external support from other Jewish communities.
This practice, and connection between Jews in Palestine and communities elsewhere, is the way Jews managed to stay in their land.

And now Palestinian Ambassador Ereikat is openly saying Jews will be ethnically cleansed from Judea because they want a Jews free Arab state there - exactly in the heart of Judea. Apartheid?

 

[Shusha]

Do you have any UN resolutions or other documentation to back that up?

Are you KIDDING me? You want a UN resolution to back up that there are two distinct peoples with full, inviolable, inalienable human rights?! What is wrong with you?

Are you trying to argue that there are NOT two distinct people, which is idiocy of the highest order? Or are you trying to argue that one peoples doesn't have basic human rights, which is antisemitism, pure and simple?

Which is it, Tinmore? Are you an idiot or an antisemite? Its been two years I've been having discussion with you and I STILL can't decide which it is.


But yeah, I got documentation -- anything that says JEWISH NATIONAL HOMELAND. Or JEWISH PEOPLE. Or f*$%ing ISRAEL.

 

[Shusha]

This is of course a strawman argument, from the sentence.

But let me address the "external interference" allegation.
Political Zionism was supported by Jews from around the world, but they were advised and directed by the Jewish families from within Ottoman Palestine. The family that actually directed the generous baron, on how and where to invest and develop in Palestine, immigrated there long before Britain and King Faisal I of Iraq inspired the idea of an independent Arab state.

Tinmore has stated frequently enough that the Palestinian people need to be taken as ONE people -- regardless of whether they live in Israel, or in the West Bank or Gaza, or Jordan or Lebanon or Syria, or in the diaspora in the US, in South America or in Europe. They are ONE people and need to be taken as a whole.

That concept needs to be applied equally to the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you KIDDING me? You want a UN resolution to back up that there are two distinct peoples with full, inviolable, inalienable human rights?!

Yep!

 

[Shusha]

In fact, I would be interested in the definition you use as to who Palestinians are!

Right?!

If I understand his argument -- all people normally resident in the territory at the time of the Citizenship Order (1925) became citizens of his (imaginary) state of "Palestine". So "Palestinians" are all those who were normally resident at the time and all their descendants.

(Interestingly, though, he views immigrants to "Palestine" post 1925 who are Arab to be "Palestinian" but immigrants who are Jewish to be "colonial invaders". Oops. He also tends to consider all Jews not present in 1925 to be "European" even though only a fraction actually are. Oops again.)

He doesn't believe that Arab Palestinians and Jewish Palestinians have the right to self-determination and self-government independent of each other. He thinks they must be forced to be considered one people. He justifies this by saying that the *cough cough* Jews who "count" want it this way. That the only Jews who matter don't want to have a self-determination separate from the Arabs.

How did I do, Tinmore?

 

[Shusha]

Are you KIDDING me? You want a UN resolution to back up that there are two distinct peoples with full, inviolable, inalienable human rights?!

Yep!

So you are arguing that Czechoslovakia, as an example, can't separate into two nations, one for each people? Or India and Pakistan and Bangladesh? Or the two Koreas? That Scotland or Quebec can't secede from UK or Canada? Or Catalans and Basques from Spain? Or Tibet from China? Or that the First Nations peoples of the Americas can't have sovereignty because they are not a distinct peoples from the Europeans?

This is seriously right up there with the craziness that "Israel does not exist".

But, I'll go along for a bit...

ANYTHING that says "Jewish people" or "Jewish National Homeland" or "Israel" is EVIDENCE that there exists a distinctly separate group of people and that those people are accepted, in international law, to have the law applied to them. (Remember, I asked you that question just yesterday?)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Are you KIDDING me? You want a UN resolution to back up that there are two distinct peoples with full, inviolable, inalienable human rights?!

Yep!

So you are arguing that Czechoslovakia, as an example, can't separate into two nations, one for each people? Or India and Pakistan and Bangladesh? Or the two Koreas? That Scotland or Quebec can't secede from UK or Canada? Or Catalans and Basques from Spain? Or Tibet from China? Or that the First Nations peoples of the Americas can't have sovereignty because they are not a distinct peoples from the Europeans?

This is seriously right up there with the craziness that "Israel does not exist".

But, I'll go along for a bit...

ANYTHING that says "Jewish people" or "Jewish National Homeland" or "Israel" is EVIDENCE that there exists a distinctly separate group of people and that those people are accepted, in international law, to have the law applied to them. (Remember, I asked you that question just yesterday?)

that there exists a distinctly separate group of people

IOW, not Palestinian.

 

[Shusha]

IOW, not Palestinian.

Okay, now you are confusing even me in your attempt to run away from answering questions. You are telling me you can't tell the difference between a Jewish Palestinian and an Arab Palestinian?

 

[P F Tinmore]

IOW, not Palestinian.

Okay, now you are confusing even me in your attempt to run away from answering questions. You are telling me you can't tell the difference between a Jewish Palestinian and an Arab Palestinian?

I am not sure I can untangle your confusion.