Palestine Today

[Hollie]

International law as opposed to 7th century sharia.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul, my friend! Every once-in-a-while → you offer up a gem of a contribution. At first, I thought this would be a real revelation into the care and treatment of insomnia. However, this presentation yielded a couple nuggets of insight on the → Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967.

But there are a couple things you should be reminded of, before you go in, while not immediately obvious.

◈ This presentation is largely about "Human Rights."
◈ This presentation is framed (right from the get-go) from a substructure as viewed from the vantage point of the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 (not 1948, not 1956, and especially not 1973).​

Now, one more thing what was brought to light that, goes all most unnoticed (about 30 minutes into the video) is the recognition of the "lawfulness" of the "Occupation." The Special Rapporteur swims right on by this, even as he says that he wants to change the framework from → legal → to "illegal per se." (This is a very big point; yet a tricky topic to tackle delivered with great courage, skill, and strength.) But again, it is like a "magic show" with excellent feats of misdirection. ≈ 31→ 32 Minutes into the presentation, the Special Rapporteur quotes other legal scholars on potentials of the situation becoming ✦ "at risk" ✦ of becoming illegal "If" this that and the other thing happens. This misdirection becomes a game of "what if's." At ≈ 31:50 the truth comes out. It cannot be determined by a literal reading of the IHL. (The unspoken truth up to this point is, that within the reading of IHL, the Occupation is "legal.")

My point is, that you do not have enough data points to make any kind of determination.

I have. What is your point?

(COMMENT)

What law was violated? I showed you mine! Where is yours?

Most Respectfully,
R

(EXTRACTED) Truncated the video starting with the Special Rapporteur (Professor S. Michael Lynk).

(COMMENT)

≈ 32:28 Comes the kicker. It "could be" (not saying it is) that IF the intent is conquest THEN the occupation "could" turn illegal. The Special Rapporteur is citing the very same IHL Citations and Protocols that I have been using all year. Though sleight of hand, he turns the law for what it says to some hypothetical that does not exist.

He then goes into the "Principles" of the "Modern World Order." I use the term "contemporary" but we mean something very similar. Here is the issue, of acceptance of the Modern World Order to set the standard and NOT the law and legislation of the individual national (basic) law. I know that our nation has fought against the establishment of the Modern World Order since the concept became popular in the last breathes of the 20th Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights & Obligations

 

[Hollie]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights & Obligations

What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple cut and paste copies of the same YouTube video?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul, my friend! Every once-in-a-while → you offer up a gem of a contribution. At first, I thought this would be a real revelation into the care and treatment of insomnia. However, this presentation yielded a couple nuggets of insight on the → Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967.

But there are a couple things you should be reminded of, before you go in, while not immediately obvious.

◈ This presentation is largely about "Human Rights."
◈ This presentation is framed (right from the get-go) from a substructure as viewed from the vantage point of the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967 (not 1948, not 1956, and especially not 1973).​

Now, one more thing what was brought to light that, goes all most unnoticed (about 30 minutes into the video) is the recognition of the "lawfulness" of the "Occupation." The Special Rapporteur swims right on by this, even as he says that he wants to change the framework from → legal → to "illegal per se." (This is a very big point; yet a tricky topic to tackle delivered with great courage, skill, and strength.) But again, it is like a "magic show" with excellent feats of misdirection. ≈ 31→ 32 Minutes into the presentation, the Special Rapporteur quotes other legal scholars on potentials of the situation becoming ✦ "at risk" ✦ of becoming illegal "If" this that and the other thing happens. This misdirection becomes a game of "what if's." At ≈ 31:50 the truth comes out. It cannot be determined by a literal reading of the IHL. (The unspoken truth up to this point is, that within the reading of IHL, the Occupation is "legal.")

My point is, that you do not have enough data points to make any kind of determination.

I have. What is your point?

(COMMENT)

What law was violated? I showed you mine! Where is yours?

Most Respectfully,
R

(EXTRACTED) Truncated the video starting with the Special Rapporteur (Professor S. Michael Lynk).

(COMMENT)

≈ 32:28 Comes the kicker. It "could be" (not saying it is) that IF the intent is conquest THEN the occupation "could" turn illegal. The Special Rapporteur is citing the very same IHL Citations and Protocols that I have been using all year. Though sleight of hand, he turns the law for what it says to some hypothetical that does not exist.

He then goes into the "Principles" of the "Modern World Order." I use the term "contemporary" but we mean something very similar. Here is the issue, of acceptance of the Modern World Order to set the standard and NOT the law and legislation of the individual national (basic) law. I know that our nation has fought against the establishment of the Modern World Order since the concept became popular in the last breathes of the 20th Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

His mandate is only from 1967. That will give you a skewed picture.

32:28 Comes the kicker. It "could be" (not saying it is) that IF the intent is conquest THEN the occupation "could" turn illegal.

I don't agree with this guy 100%. (I don't agree with anyone 100%.) Israel has been colonialism and conquest since before 1948. Starting at 1967 is just ducking the issues. You can't find the solution to a problem without identifying the problem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: Palestinian Rights & Obligations

What point is served by spamming the thread with multiple cut and paste copies of the same YouTube video?

They aren't the same.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Neither side (Israelis v Palestinians) is going to accept responsibility. To them it serves no useful purpose.

I don't agree with this guy 100%. (I don't agree with anyone 100%.) Israel has been colonialism and conquest since before 1948. Starting at 1967 is just ducking the issues. You can't find the solution to a problem without identifying the problem.

(COMMENT)

You cannot open up peace negotiation and discuss topics that neither side will compromise. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis did not (originally) have the intent do acquire as much territory as it did. The Israelis don't want an additional territory in which the unproductive Arab Palestinian population roam. That would be much of a tax burden on the Israeli economy. The best of the econmicindators and the analysis capabiity expect the Unemployment Rate in Israel to be less than 4% by the end of CY 2018; whereas → the West Bank (+ Gaza):

​

No Arab League Nation wants this burden. And Israel is no different.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Neither side (Israelis v Palestinians) is going to accept responsibility. To them it serves no useful purpose.

I don't agree with this guy 100%. (I don't agree with anyone 100%.) Israel has been colonialism and conquest since before 1948. Starting at 1967 is just ducking the issues. You can't find the solution to a problem without identifying the problem.

(COMMENT)

You cannot open up peace negotiation and discuss topics that neither side will compromise. I'm pretty sure that the Israelis did not (originally) have the intent do acquire as much territory as it did. The Israelis don't want an additional territory in which the unproductive Arab Palestinian population roam. That would be much of a tax burden on the Israeli economy. The best of the econmicindators and the analysis capabiity expect the Unemployment Rate in Israel to be less than 4% by the end of CY 2018; whereas → the West Bank (+ Gaza):

View attachment 235110
​

No Arab League Nation wants this burden. And Israel is no different.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Israelis don't want an additional territory in which the unproductive Arab Palestinian population roam.

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

 

[Shusha]

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

Shrug.

The question is whether or not the Arabs are still going to ask that question in another 100 years, or if they are going to work now to change their future.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

Shrug.

The question is whether or not the Arabs are still going to ask that question in another 100 years, or if they are going to work now to change their future.

They are. They are trying to get Israel to stop stealing, bombing, and bulldozing.

 

[Hollie]

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

Shrug.

The question is whether or not the Arabs are still going to ask that question in another 100 years, or if they are going to work now to change their future.

They are. They are trying to get Israel to stop stealing, bombing, and bulldozing.

Actually, the primary focus of the Arabs-Moslems appears to be concentrated on the border gee-had and the perpetuation of violence and retrogression.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel Palestine International Law Symposium: One State or Two?

 

[Hollie]

Islamist terrorist one-state solution

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go → the poor and downtrodden Arab Palestinians (the avatar exemplar for every two-bit jihadist, insurgent, Radicalized Islamic extremist, adherents, guerrillas and asymmetric fighter) throughout in the Middle Eastern Region. Sad, istn't it! They are just treated so badly. No one appreciates them for their great works that they do, the shaded past history of criminal behaviors, and drama queens that they are.

The Israelis don't want an additional territory in which the unproductive Arab Palestinian population roam.

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

(COMMENT)

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just cooperated in the establishment of government institutions in 1947?

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just lobbied for peace instead of war in 1967?

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just been a supporting allied neighbor of the Israelis instead of Arab League Fifth Columnist?

The Hostile Arab Palestinians on behalf of Islam and the Arab Palestinian People, who are undergoing a personal, spiritual, and internal struggle to achieve their destiny, that find it honorable in “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations, ARE just a bunch of psychopaths pretending to be freedom fighters and patriots.”

◈ P F Tinmore asked: What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

ANSWER: With the effort, they could have achieved any number of positive contributions (Economics, Literature, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Cosmology, Physics, Physiology, and Medicine, etc) to the world; → with the effort they could have done anything they wanted; they could have reshaped the world for the betterment for all, they could even have turned that dump they call Gaza as a center for advanced studies the → new Mecca for great scientists. BUT look what they chose to do!

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

The physical manifestation of the politico-religious ideology of Islamism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Here we go → the poor and downtrodden Arab Palestinians (the avatar exemplar for every two-bit jihadist, insurgent, Radicalized Islamic extremist, adherents, guerrillas and asymmetric fighter) throughout in the Middle Eastern Region. Sad, istn't it! They are just treated so badly. No one appreciates them for their great works that they do, the shaded past history of criminal behaviors, and drama queens that they are.

The Israelis don't want an additional territory in which the unproductive Arab Palestinian population roam.

What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

(COMMENT)

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just cooperated in the establishment of government institutions in 1947?

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just lobbied for peace instead of war in 1967?

❖ How much further along would the Arab Palestinians have been if they had just been a supporting allied neighbor of the Israelis instead of Arab League Fifth Columnist?

The Hostile Arab Palestinians on behalf of Islam and the Arab Palestinian People, who are undergoing a personal, spiritual, and internal struggle to achieve their destiny, that find it honorable in “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations, ARE just a bunch of psychopaths pretending to be freedom fighters and patriots.”

◈ P F Tinmore asked: What would the Palestinian production capacity be if their assets were not stolen, bombed, or bulldozed?

ANSWER: With the effort, they could have achieved any number of positive contributions (Economics, Literature, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Cosmology, Physics, Physiology, and Medicine, etc) to the world; → with the effort they could have done anything they wanted; they could have reshaped the world for the betterment for all, they could even have turned that dump they call Gaza as a center for advanced studies the → new Mecca for great scientists. BUT look what they chose to do!

Most Respectfully,
R

They do work on line but it is hard for them to get paid. It is difficult to get money into Gaza.

Almost everything needs capital, materials, and equipment. The only way to do that is with international trade.

Not to mention that almost all of their factories have been bombed and they get shot at if they farm or fish.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

As really retrograde as it gets.

 

[P F Tinmore]