Palestine Today

[Shusha]

Hanady Halawany: a lioness among a pack of hyenas.

Apparently "lioness" keeps getting banned from Jerusalem. Maybe she needs to find some new hunting grounds.

 

[Shusha]

Well, no. Its not the occupation. Its Jewish sovereignty.

See, if it was the occupation and by "occupation" you mean Jewish sovereignty on part of the land where the Jewish people control their own fate, and Arab Palestinian sovereignty on part of the land where the Arab Palestinians control their own fate, there would have been peace near on 100 years ago.

But by "occupation", you mean, clearly and explicitly, the complete rejection of any Jewish sovereignty on any part of the land. By this definition, it is impossible for Israel OR the Jewish people to "end the occupation". Because, by definition, ending the occupation means an end to any sort of independent Jewish sovereignty in any of the territory.

This isn't exactly news.

What continues to surprise me about this is the utter inability of the Arab Palestinians to understand they are in a "no win" situation. Holding on to the idea of "no Jewish sovereignty anywhere" is not only morally abhorrent but, IMPORTANTLY, absolutely impossible to achieve. Israel is a million miles ahead of them according to any measure you want to lay down: economically, militarily, politically.... on and on. And even the Arabs are abandoning the Arab Palestinians, and importantly, the IDEOLOGY of "no Jewish sovereignty".

There is no way for the Arab Palestinians to improve their lives, their culture or their nationhood under an umbrella of "no Jewish sovereignty anywhere".

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

Surrounding these many, many issues, are what we have come to realize are incomplete theories.

Good morning from al-Aqsa Mosque, occupied Jerusalem.

Jerusalem. Homeland of the Jewish people. Occupied by invading cultures for 3000 years. The only indigenous peoples to regain sovereignty over their traditional territories.

(COMMENT)

ONE CONCEPT:

◈ One of these incomplete theories is the concept of "right of return" which is directly related and tethered to the concept of the "obligation to refugees." We generalize these under the heading of "humanitarian law." Contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) began to be codified in the 19th Century (≈1864) with the enmergence of the the Geneva Convention.

◈ The "right of return" is actually a transfer of an obligations from the burden of one political subdivision to another. The obligation is base on the self-imposed redistribution of wealth → and → as a desire to promote the welfare of others → a measure of generousity as donation to a worthy causes. It is a social advocation of help to those (the refugee) in need; as a humanitarian act.​

ANOTHER CONCEPT:

◈ Another close entanglement is the tie between "territorial acquistion" and the "rights of the former inhabitance drive out by conflict." This is actually a transfer of wealth in the form of land (property generating revenue through commerce) and the production and consumption goods and services from the land. These are yardsticks by which society measures the accumulation of wealth.

◈ Refugees lose wealth in the vacation or abandonment of property and the void is filled by the the acquiring entity that follows in its place. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.

◈ Up and until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the act of defeating an opposing State and occupying all or part of its territory with the intention of annexation was revisited. Even in the wars that came after the Treaty of Westphailia, customary law pertaining to territory acquistion as a result of a Armed Conflict did not change. For example, the Spanish-American War (1895), Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded; and Cuba became an American Protectorate.
​

Each of these issues is not fully completed and thought out concepts. Thus the contemporary laws are confused in there interpretation and misapplied in others.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

Surrounding these many, many issues, are what we have come to realize are incomplete theories.

Good morning from al-Aqsa Mosque, occupied Jerusalem.

Jerusalem. Homeland of the Jewish people. Occupied by invading cultures for 3000 years. The only indigenous peoples to regain sovereignty over their traditional territories.

(COMMENT)

ONE CONCEPT:

◈ One of these incomplete theories is the concept of "right of return" which is directly related and tethered to the concept of the "obligation to refugees." We generalize these under the heading of "humanitarian law." Contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) began to be codified in the 19th Century (≈1864) with the enmergence of the the Geneva Convention.

◈ The "right of return" is actually a transfer of an obligations from the burden of one political subdivision to another. The obligation is base on the self-imposed redistribution of wealth → and → as a desire to promote the welfare of others → a measure of generousity as donation to a worthy causes. It is a social advocation of help to those (the refugee) in need; as a humanitarian act.​

ANOTHER CONCEPT:

◈ Another close entanglement is the tie between "territorial acquistion" and the "rights of the former inhabitance drive out by conflict." This is actually a transfer of wealth in the form of land (property generating revenue through commerce) and the production and consumption goods and services from the land. These are yardsticks by which society measures the accumulation of wealth.

◈ Refugees lose wealth in the vacation or abandonment of property and the void is filled by the the acquiring entity that follows in its place. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.

◈ Up and until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the act of defeating an opposing State and occupying all or part of its territory with the intention of annexation was revisited. Even in the wars that came after the Treaty of Westphailia, customary law pertaining to territory acquistion as a result of a Armed Conflict did not change. For example, the Spanish-American War (1895), Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded; and Cuba became an American Protectorate.
​

Each of these issues is not fully completed and thought out concepts. Thus the contemporary laws are confused in there interpretation and misapplied in others.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ahed Tamimi

Slapping a soldier is an assault.

Shooting her cousin in the face is not.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is a question that has already been decided.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

(COMMENT)

There have been three knockdown, drag-out, fights between Israel and Arab Forces.

◈ 1948: The conflict outcome was the establishment of the Jewish State.

✦ Jordan first occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
✦ Jordan later annexed the West Bank through a Parliamentary Process in which the Arab Palestinians participated.
✦ Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
✦ Egypt established a Military Governorship.
​

◈ 1967: The conflict outcome was the prevention of Arab Control over Israel.

✦ Israel occupied the territroy first occupied by Jordan (the West Bank and East Jerusalem).
✦ Israel occupied the territroy first occupied by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).
​

◈ 1973: Israel successfully defends all territories from a third Arab League military expedition.

◈ Peace Treaties established between the Parties to the Conflict:

✦ 1979: Israel-Egypt new boundaries established.
✦ 1994: Israel-Jordan new boundaries established.
​

It should be noted that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the conflict and were not a party to the treaties (having not lost any territory to the Israelis).

If there was a "military conquest and annexation" by the Israelis, it was not over Arab Palestinian controlled territory; but rather Egyptian and Jordanian territory.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

(COMMENT)

The "right of return" was never made law. It should be noted that:

◈ UN General Assembly Resolution 194 NOT LAW.

✦ Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
✦ Compensation should be paid for the property of those.
​

◈ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) NOT LAW. The UDHR is not binding, thus Article 13(2) ("Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.") IS NOT BINDING; no matter how it is interpreted. And, in the case of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)" which IS BINDING, there is no equivalent Article. It was intentionally left out.

Building on the achievements of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The two Covenants have developed most of the rights already enshrined in the UDHR, making them effectively binding on States that have ratified them.

Another point:

Article 24 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •
Non-retroactivity ratione personae

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
​

NOTE:

Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, United Nations Treaty Collection.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

This is a question that has already been decided.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

(COMMENT)

There have been three knockdown, drag-out, fights between Israel and Arab Forces.

◈ 1948: The conflict outcome was the establishment of the Jewish State.

✦ Jordan first occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
✦ Jordan later annexed the West Bank through a Parliamentary Process in which the Arab Palestinians participated.
✦ Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip.
✦ Egypt established a Military Governorship.
​

◈ 1967: The conflict outcome was the prevention of Arab Control over Israel.

✦ Israel occupied the territroy first occupied by Jordan (the West Bank and East Jerusalem).
✦ Israel occupied the territroy first occupied by Egypt (the Gaza Strip).
​

◈ 1973: Israel successfully defends all territories from a third Arab League military expedition.

◈ Peace Treaties established between the Parties to the Conflict:

✦ 1979: Israel-Egypt new boundaries established.
✦ 1994: Israel-Jordan new boundaries established.
​

It should be noted that the Arab Palestinians were not a party to the conflict and were not a party to the treaties (having not lost any territory to the Israelis).

If there was a "military conquest and annexation" by the Israelis, it was not over Arab Palestinian controlled territory; but rather Egyptian and Jordanian territory.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

(COMMENT)

The "right of return" was never made law. It should be noted that:

◈ UN General Assembly Resolution 194 NOT LAW.

✦ Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
✦ Compensation should be paid for the property of those.
​

◈ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) NOT LAW. The UDHR is not binding, thus Article 13(2) ("Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.") IS NOT BINDING; no matter how it is interpreted. And, in the case of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)" which IS BINDING, there is no equivalent Article. It was intentionally left out.

Building on the achievements of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights entered into force in 1976. The two Covenants have developed most of the rights already enshrined in the UDHR, making them effectively binding on States that have ratified them.

Another point:

Article 24 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court •
Non-retroactivity ratione personae

1. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute.

2. In the event of a change in the law applicable to a given case prior to a final judgement, the law more favourable to the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted shall apply.
​

NOTE:

Done at Rome on 17 July 1998, in force on 1 July 2002, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, No. 38544, Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations, United Nations Treaty Collection.

Most Respectfully,
R

My statements are correct. The surrounding Arab countries have no bearing on them.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You speak just like the shadows of every major guerrilla (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) since the time Spartacus, Crazy Horse, and Che Guevara. Your language is nearly the same as all these losers expressed in the past. And in the end, all of them lost.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

My statements are correct. The surrounding Arab countries have no bearing on them.

(COMMENT)

Your complaint is so far outside the box as to be certain that the Arab Palestinians, violent and corrupt as they are, will not be able to secure a reasonable or just outcome. The Israelis did not take, by force, and disputed territory (pertaining to the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip) that has not negotiated and settled by Peace Treaty with the parties concerned (Jordan, Egypt). The Israelis came by the disputed territory as a result of combat outcomes and peace negotiations with these parties, which at the time, represented the Arab League and were acting on behalf (as an agent) of the Arab Palestinian People.

The inability of the Arab Palestinian People to act in a civilized manner (Posting #8116 --- Posting #362) in a form consistent with the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 XXV) in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Once again, as stated in Posting #362, the Arab Palestinians that believe and then carry-out the following (but not limited to) criminal acts, are in violation of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) and:

◈ Rule #2: Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”.

◈ Rule #11: The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.

◈ Rule #21: Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives.

◈ Rule #23: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated area.

◈ Rule #24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

◈ Rule #84: If incendiary weapons are used, particular care must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

◈ Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.

◈ Rule "152. Command Responsibility for Orders to Commit War Crimes​

It is also the case that it is Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; as well as providing a safehouse for those involved in "criminal acts" directed against the US or Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. It is also prohibited for any person to unlawfully and intentionally deliver, place, discharge or detonate an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility. [See: Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938); S/RES/1624 (2005); International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism]

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Justice and only Justice--Dr. Sara Roy: Dispossessing Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

You speak just like the shadows of every major guerrilla (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) since the time Spartacus, Crazy Horse, and Che Guevara. Your language is nearly the same as all these losers expressed in the past. And in the end, all of them lost.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

My statements are correct. The surrounding Arab countries have no bearing on them.

(COMMENT)

Your complaint is so far outside the box as to be certain that the Arab Palestinians, violent and corrupt as they are, will not be able to secure a reasonable or just outcome. The Israelis did not take, by force, and disputed territory (pertaining to the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip) that has not negotiated and settled by Peace Treaty with the parties concerned (Jordan, Egypt). The Israelis came by the disputed territory as a result of combat outcomes and peace negotiations with these parties, which at the time, represented the Arab League and were acting on behalf (as an agent) of the Arab Palestinian People.

The inability of the Arab Palestinian People to act in a civilized manner (Posting #8116 --- Posting #362) in a form consistent with the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (A/RES/25/2625 XXV) in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Once again, as stated in Posting #362, the Arab Palestinians that believe and then carry-out the following (but not limited to) criminal acts, are in violation of Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Arab Palestinians who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power) and:

◈ Rule #2: Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I prohibits “acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population”.

◈ Rule #11: The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.

◈ Rule #21: Each party to the conflict must do everything feasible to verify that targets are military objectives.

◈ Rule #23: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated area.

◈ Rule #24: Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.

◈ Rule #84: If incendiary weapons are used, particular care must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

◈ Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.

◈ Rule "152. Command Responsibility for Orders to Commit War Crimes​

It is also the case that it is Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts; as well as providing a safehouse for those involved in "criminal acts" directed against the US or Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry and general public. It is also prohibited for any person to unlawfully and intentionally deliver, place, discharge or detonate an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility. [See: Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism (1938); S/RES/1624 (2005); International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism]

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

 

[USAF 2023]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

Surrounding these many, many issues, are what we have come to realize are incomplete theories.

Good morning from al-Aqsa Mosque, occupied Jerusalem.

Jerusalem. Homeland of the Jewish people. Occupied by invading cultures for 3000 years. The only indigenous peoples to regain sovereignty over their traditional territories.

(COMMENT)

ONE CONCEPT:

◈ One of these incomplete theories is the concept of "right of return" which is directly related and tethered to the concept of the "obligation to refugees." We generalize these under the heading of "humanitarian law." Contemporary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) began to be codified in the 19th Century (≈1864) with the enmergence of the the Geneva Convention.

◈ The "right of return" is actually a transfer of an obligations from the burden of one political subdivision to another. The obligation is base on the self-imposed redistribution of wealth → and → as a desire to promote the welfare of others → a measure of generousity as donation to a worthy causes. It is a social advocation of help to those (the refugee) in need; as a humanitarian act.​

ANOTHER CONCEPT:

◈ Another close entanglement is the tie between "territorial acquistion" and the "rights of the former inhabitance drive out by conflict." This is actually a transfer of wealth in the form of land (property generating revenue through commerce) and the production and consumption goods and services from the land. These are yardsticks by which society measures the accumulation of wealth.

◈ Refugees lose wealth in the vacation or abandonment of property and the void is filled by the the acquiring entity that follows in its place. Territorial Sovereignty is the right of a State to exercise over its own territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the functions of a State.

◈ Up and until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) the act of defeating an opposing State and occupying all or part of its territory with the intention of annexation was revisited. Even in the wars that came after the Treaty of Westphailia, customary law pertaining to territory acquistion as a result of a Armed Conflict did not change. For example, the Spanish-American War (1895), Puerto Rico and Guam were ceded; and Cuba became an American Protectorate.
​

Each of these issues is not fully completed and thought out concepts. Thus the contemporary laws are confused in there interpretation and misapplied in others.

Most Respectfully,
R

In the case of Israel, there was a pre planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of Israeli territory was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Wrong again. " International Law" states " Live at peace with their neighbors"



The United Nations General Assembly adopts resolution 194 (III), resolving that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

Fatah Logo Celebrating 48th Anniversary Erases Israel from Map

But please, Keep Pasting and Posting

International recognition of Israel - Wikipedia.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Each post was answered.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Each post was answered.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ ILOVEISRAEL, et al,

Yes, I have to agree.

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

(REFERENCE)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Article 7j --- Apartheid

"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, 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;

Elements of Crimes
Article 7 (1) (j) Crime against humanity of apartheid

1. The perpetrator committed an inhumane act against one or more persons.
2. Such act was an act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute, or was an act of a character similar to any of those acts.
3. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the character of the act.
4. The conduct was committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups.
5. The perpetrator intended to maintain such regime by that conduct.
6. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
7. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population

(COMMENT)

I don't believe that Professor Richard Falk actually understands the intent and meaning of the Law which prohibits Apartheid.

The separation maintained by Israel is domestic border immigration and customs enforcement matter. The Arab Palestinians are NOT denied access because they are Muslim; or because they are of a different race; or to maintain a regime. They are denied simply because they are NOT citizens of the State of Israel.

Most countries, including every member of the UN Security Council, has a branch of government that maintains and enforces Immigration, Border Protection, and Customs policies.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Each post was answered.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Each post was answered.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

Google it. The PLO’s OFFICIAL POSITION is that The Jewish People have No Rights to the Western Wall. Haven’t heard Abbas condemn that.
That would be true of ALL other Religious Sites, Has Tinmore condemned it? Of course not . Yet it’s Israel whose “ Apartheid?”
Every time he posts I actually enjoy it

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Each post was answered.

In the case of Israel, there was a pre-planned and executed elimination of the Palestinians by military attacks on the civilian population. This was a military conquest and annexation of Palestine. All of the Israeli territories was acquired in this manner.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's inalienable rights as were enumerated in subsequent UN resolutions. The right to return is one of these enumerated rights.

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

Google it. The PLO’s OFFICIAL POSITION is that The Jewish People have No Rights to the Western Wall. Haven’t heard Abbas condemn that.
That would be true of ALL other Religious Sites, Has Tinmore condemned it? Of course not . Yet it’s Israel whose “ Apartheid?”
Every time he posts I actually enjoy it

Yes, you are right. The PLO has said that the Western Wall would not be a part of Israel in a peace agreement, Gd forbid. I googled it.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

Each post was answered.

​

Holy smokescreen, Batman!

How does that refute my post?

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

Google it. The PLO’s OFFICIAL POSITION is that The Jewish People have No Rights to the Western Wall. Haven’t heard Abbas condemn that.
That would be true of ALL other Religious Sites, Has Tinmore condemned it? Of course not . Yet it’s Israel whose “ Apartheid?”
Every time he posts I actually enjoy it

Yes, you are right. The PLO has said that the Western Wall would not be a part of Israel in a peace agreement, Gd forbid. I googled it.

Ironically, according to “ International Law”Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to it but didn’t. Ask Tinmore why the PLO is taking that stance and there will be no response
I have been there and Israel is Never going to give it up

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Each post was answered.

(COMMENT)

This pre-planned accusation → you state is just an open accusation. So it is answered in the same fashion.

◈ It does not take into consideration that Peace Terms put an end to that.

◈ It does not give any specifics or pin down any time frame during the last seven decades, for me to give any specific answer.​

You do not cite any specific right match: violation of a specific law that has been violated.

◈ You do not cite the law pertaining to the rights in question.

◈ You do not cite an authority for the violent actions enumerated to secure these undefine "legal" rights.​

As near as I can tell, you are indirectly pointing to the "right-of-return." The lawlessness on the part of the Arab Palestinians who seem to have this same trouble as you → in articulating the supposed "right" by law, is just a "smoke screen" for the criminal activity (as stated).

By making these unsubstantiated and poorly articulated claims, and then yelling "smoke screen" is only an ineffective way to justification.

Remember, that Israel was created in the spirit of the Mandate and A/RES/181 (II), and the right of self-determination of the Jewish People. And Israel has been defending their state against Arab League aggression in the spirit of the laws over three wars and two Intifada and seven decades of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. All justified by this "right" which was clearly itten out of the law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

Google it. The PLO’s OFFICIAL POSITION is that The Jewish People have No Rights to the Western Wall. Haven’t heard Abbas condemn that.
That would be true of ALL other Religious Sites, Has Tinmore condemned it? Of course not . Yet it’s Israel whose “ Apartheid?”
Every time he posts I actually enjoy it

Yes, you are right. The PLO has said that the Western Wall would not be a part of Israel in a peace agreement, Gd forbid. I googled it.

Ironically, according to “ International Law”Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to it but didn’t. Ask Tinmore why the PLO is taking that stance and there will be no response
I have been there and Israel is Never going to give it up

Even if we would have access to the Wall, that would not be enough. The Old City would have to be a part of Israel. It's enough that we would have to give up the tombs of our fathers and mothers. Jerusalem is ours and we paid a high price for it.

 

[USAF 2023]

Ask why Israel is responsible for “ Apartheid “ with Abbas declaring “ No Israelis in Palestine” or the Jewish people not having access to the Western Wall and there will be no response

Did Abbas really say that Jewish ppl would not have access to the Western Wall in a Palestinian state, just as it was under the Jordanians? Link? Because that's really shameful. Furthermore, access would also have to be guaranteed to Abraham's, Rachel's and Joseph's Tombs, the latter having already been destroyed several times shamefully.

Google it. The PLO’s OFFICIAL POSITION is that The Jewish People have No Rights to the Western Wall. Haven’t heard Abbas condemn that.
That would be true of ALL other Religious Sites, Has Tinmore condemned it? Of course not . Yet it’s Israel whose “ Apartheid?”
Every time he posts I actually enjoy it

Yes, you are right. The PLO has said that the Western Wall would not be a part of Israel in a peace agreement, Gd forbid. I googled it.

Ironically, according to “ International Law”Jordan was supposed to let the Israelis have access to it but didn’t. Ask Tinmore why the PLO is taking that stance and there will be no response
I have been there and Israel is Never going to give it up

Even if we would have access to the Wall, that would not be enough. The Old City would have to be a part of Israel. It's enough that we would have to give up the tombs of our fathers and mothers. Jerusalem is ours and we paid a high price for it.

I agree! However, that’s not my point. If they were so interested in achieving “ peace” why is this a demand ? There will not be an answer which is why there will never be a “ Palestinian State’