Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a fault to this argument.

Understanding the term “indigenous”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:

Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies

Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources

Distinct social, economic or political systems

Distinct language, culture and beliefs

Form non-dominant groups of society

Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
communities.
​

It was not until the 21st Century (September 2007) that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) Was even adopted. That is more than half a century after the Independence of Israel; four decades after the 1967 Six-Day War; and almost 20 years after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) announced the Independence of the the State of Palestine.

The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002. It is a 21st Century Concept of the Rule of Law. ‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts (Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity) committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which entered into force 18 July 1976, a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War but a decade before the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and abandon the West Bank to the Israeli Occupation.

Ali Abunimah: Israeli Apartheid & Beyond.

(COMMENT)

We all must recognize that the politics of yesterday-year, the continuum of the politics between then and now, and the politics of the future will amend how we think about these issues. But what we think is applicable today is not necessarily sound or valid. Again, as has been stated before, any attempt to apply 21st Century concepts to decisions made a half-century ago or more in the first half of the 20th Century is simply impractical.

Soon, there will neither be any Jewish or any Arab Palestinians remaining that were of the originals involved in the 1948 events from which Israel emerged. The entire complexion of the dispute will change.

Most Reespectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a fault to this argument.

Understanding the term “indigenous”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:

Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies

Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources

Distinct social, economic or political systems

Distinct language, culture and beliefs

Form non-dominant groups of society

Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
communities.
​

It was not until the 21st Century (September 2007) that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) Was even adopted. That is more than half a century after the Independence of Israel; four decades after the 1967 Six-Day War; and almost 20 years after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) announced the Independence of the the State of Palestine.

The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002. It is a 21st Century Concept of the Rule of Law. ‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts (Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity) committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which entered into force 18 July 1976, a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War but a decade before the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and abandon the West Bank to the Israeli Occupation.

Ali Abunimah: Israeli Apartheid & Beyond.

(COMMENT)

We all must recognize that the politics of yesterday-year, the continuum of the politics between then and now, and the politics of the future will amend how we think about these issues. But what we think is applicable today is not necessarily sound or valid. Again, as has been stated before, any attempt to apply 21st Century concepts to decisions made a half-century ago or more in the first half of the 20th Century is simply impractical.

Soon, there will neither be any Jewish or any Arab Palestinians remaining that were of the originals involved in the 1948 events from which Israel emerged. The entire complexion of the dispute will change.

Most Reespectfully,
R

First watch this. The host was confused about how the "Arabs" and Jews lived together. He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well. It appears that the host and the women were on a different page.

The story of a Jewish grandma born in Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think there is a fault to this argument.

Understanding the term “indigenous”

Considering the diversity of indigenous peoples, an official definition of “indigenous” has not been adopted by any UN-system body. Instead the system has developed a modern understanding of this term based on the following:

Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies

Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources

Distinct social, economic or political systems

Distinct language, culture and beliefs

Form non-dominant groups of society

Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and
communities.
​

It was not until the 21st Century (September 2007) that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) Was even adopted. That is more than half a century after the Independence of Israel; four decades after the 1967 Six-Day War; and almost 20 years after the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) announced the Independence of the the State of Palestine.

The Rome Statutes of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002. It is a 21st Century Concept of the Rule of Law. ‘The crime of apartheid’ means inhumane acts (Article 7: Crimes Against Humanity) committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. The International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which entered into force 18 July 1976, a decade after the 1967 Six-Day War but a decade before the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan cut all ties with the West Bank and abandon the West Bank to the Israeli Occupation.

Ali Abunimah: Israeli Apartheid & Beyond.

(COMMENT)

We all must recognize that the politics of yesterday-year, the continuum of the politics between then and now, and the politics of the future will amend how we think about these issues. But what we think is applicable today is not necessarily sound or valid. Again, as has been stated before, any attempt to apply 21st Century concepts to decisions made a half-century ago or more in the first half of the 20th Century is simply impractical.

Soon, there will neither be any Jewish or any Arab Palestinians remaining that were of the originals involved in the 1948 events from which Israel emerged. The entire complexion of the dispute will change.

Most Reespectfully,
R

Interesting, Rocco. When it comes to indigenous, or first people, we would have to go back to the cave man and we would not be sure that they were not from someplace else.

The UN's rights of the indigenous seems to be for the remnants of people displaced by settler colonial projects (Like the Americas or Australia, etc.) before there were concepts of rights or international law. Unfortunately, when Israel conquered Palestine by military force, these concepts were in place. I don't believe that the UN's indigenous rights would apply to the Palestinians. Other laws would be applicable.

In your post you said:

Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

The Zionists did not self identify as Palestinians and were not accepted by the community as Palestinians. They did not immigrate to Palestine to be part of that community. They lived in colonies away from anything Palestinian. They came with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for themselves. Colonization is a term they themselves used to define their actions.

These violations must be addressed before there will be peace. You will never hear the words rights or international law cross the lips of anyone in the fake peace process. That is why it has always failed and always will.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Yes, I absolutely did say this.

In your post you said:

Self-identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.

The Zionists did not self identify as Palestinians and were not accepted by the community as Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

In fact, many Jewish People today still hold a very strong connection (self-identification) with the lands associated with the Kingdoms of Israeli and Judah; which includes the capitals cities of Samaria and Jerusalem.

​

In the time of King Solomon and the First Temple --- it was all considered one Kingdom.

They did not immigrate to Palestine to be part of that community. They lived in colonies away from anything Palestinian. They came with the stated goal of taking over Palestine for themselves. Colonization is a term they themselves used to define their actions.

These violations must be addressed before there will be peace. You will never hear the words rights or international law cross the lips of anyone in the fake peace process. That is why it has always failed and always will.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, the connection between the Jewish People and the territory, in these contemporary times, have no practical value. The original authority for the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) from the post-War Carve-out of from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In that, the Allied Powers made the determination that the Mandatory (the British) would have full powers of legislation and of administration; including being in favor of the establishment in Palestine the JNH for the Jewish people,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

As long as the Arab Palestinian demands an "all or nothing" outcome in the sensation, the longer it will take for a Peaceful Solution (alia

These violations must be addressed before there will be peace. You will never hear the words rights or international law cross the lips of anyone in the fake peace process. That is why it has always failed and always will.

(COMMENT)

There are three principe cents that the Arab Palestinians has consistantly ignored for the last seventy years. And still today, the Arab Palestinian holds to the unbending position that: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase." This position violates one of the essential duties of a State; and its primary interest as a states to conserve peace. Differences of any nature which arise between States should be settled by recognized pacific methods IAW the Friendly relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625). As long as these three duties are abandon by the Arab Palestinian, so long will it be a lawless state and flawed state.

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.​

The Arab Palestinian people, in what is called today as the "occupied territories," has no special right or privilege to ignore these three tenants. Over the last half century, the Arab Palestinian has (over and overs again) demonstrated the moral proclivity for all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed [S/RES/1624 (2005)]:

•→ Using terrorist acts to motivate extremism and intolerance.
​

•→ Financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts.

•→ Openly rewarding terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.

As long as the Arab Palestinian declines to act according to the Convention on Rights and Duties of States and maintains an open state of hostilities, too will it be the status quo.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

 

[P F Tinmore]

•→ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

There is no dispute. Israel has been sitting inside Palestine since 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

You are brushing over the Zionist settler colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ezz Zanoun

 

[P F Tinmore]

SF Community Labor Rally Defends Palestinian Professor Rabab Abdulhadi Against Zionist Lawsuit

BTW, this frivolous lawsuit has been dropped.

 

[Shusha]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

You are brushing over the Zionist settler colonial project.

I am pointing out that the presence of Jews is not inherently harmful.

If the Arabs had simply wished the Jewish people a most hearty welcome home the Arab Palestinians would be peacefully and prosperously in that one multi-ethnic, multi-race, multi-religious place you talked about the other day.

 

[P F Tinmore]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

You are brushing over the Zionist settler colonial project.

I am pointing out that the presence of Jews is not inherently harmful.

If the Arabs had simply wished the Jewish people a most hearty welcome home the Arab Palestinians would be peacefully and prosperously in that one multi-ethnic, multi-race, multi-religious place you talked about the other day.

The Jew were not the problem. The Zionist settler colonial project was the problem.

 

[Shusha]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

You are brushing over the Zionist settler colonial project.

I am pointing out that the presence of Jews is not inherently harmful.

If the Arabs had simply wished the Jewish people a most hearty welcome home the Arab Palestinians would be peacefully and prosperously in that one multi-ethnic, multi-race, multi-religious place you talked about the other day.

The Jew were not the problem. The Zionist settler colonial project was the problem.

So the Jews returning to their homeland were not the problem?

How can you tell the difference between a Jew returning home and a Zionist?

(Wait. This is where you talk about pigging the place right?)

 

[P F Tinmore]

He did not consider how the Zionist settler colonial project was poisoning the well.

The presence of Jews in the territory of their historical homeland is not poisoning the well. Its the ATTITUDE of the Arabs about the presence of Jews which poisons the well.

It might have gone like this:

We Arabs... look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, insofar as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home...

You are brushing over the Zionist settler colonial project.

I am pointing out that the presence of Jews is not inherently harmful.

If the Arabs had simply wished the Jewish people a most hearty welcome home the Arab Palestinians would be peacefully and prosperously in that one multi-ethnic, multi-race, multi-religious place you talked about the other day.

The Jew were not the problem. The Zionist settler colonial project was the problem.

So the Jews returning to their homeland were not the problem?

How can you tell the difference between a Jew returning home and a Zionist?

(Wait. This is where you talk about pigging the place right?)

Indeed, there is a difference between moving into a country and taking it over.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Joseph Massad: 100 Years After the Balfour Declaration – Vienna Austria – 2017.11.04

 

[P F Tinmore]

Interview with Mnar Muhawesh of Mint Press News

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, there is a difference between moving into a country and taking it over.

There was no "country" to take over. The nation was dissolved. What replaced it was the expression of various different peoples self-determination. Why should the Jewish people be excluded from that process?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, there is a difference between moving into a country and taking it over.

There was no "country" to take over. The nation was dissolved. What replaced it was the expression of various different peoples self-determination. Why should the Jewish people be excluded from that process?

Are you going to go back to Israel's old horseshit of there never was a Palestine?

 

[Shusha]

Are you going to go back to Israel's old horseshit of there never was a Palestine?

Not in the slightest. The Ottoman Empire was dissolved. It ceased to exist. It was replaced with a number of smaller nations based on the wishes of the people who had connections to that territory. The Jewish people were one of those. Why should that one people, with a clear historical connection to that territory, be excluded from the same principles upon which everyone else achieved self-determination, sovereignty and independence?