Palestine Today

[P F Tinmore]

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

Not all nations of the world hold to the concept that the principle use of military force is a matter of deterrence, defense and maintenance of the peace.

Many nations of the world see the use of military force as a necessary tool to protect their national interests —- and —- to carry out national policy as an extension of international diplomacy.

Historically, many successful empires have used military force to structure a form of composite of fragmented nations, ruled under a single entity to extend control over greater resources, producing wealth and expanding commerce for the improvement of the entire territory as a whole.

The nationality law was imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

The territory called Palestine has been under foreign control imposed by military regimes since before the time of the crusaders, the Fatima and Abbasid Caliphates — until the present (a period of more than a 1000 years). This span of foreign control —- with the Fatima’s dominating most of the region from NW Africa —- after the Abbasids which governed most of the Islamic world from Baghdad.

On the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the surrender of the Turkish Republic, the rule and nationality changes were no different from that experienced by the Middle Easterners from the previous millennium.

The suggestion that the nationality and citizenship, supported by the forces of the Allied Powers was somehow strange or different —- taken outside the customary rule of law is simply historically inaccurate. From the time of Persian Rule (540 BC) to the British Mandate (1922) there was no change in sovereignty that was not a shadow outcome of a conflict or war.

This was a violation of the Palestinian's right to self determination without external interference.

(COMMENT)

At mid-night 14/15 May 1948, the Provisional Government of Israel announced its independence on the departure of the British High Commissioner; British control of Palestine officially ended with the successor government handed to the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC). This was the exercise of a form of self-determination (alla Chapter I of the UN Charter); fully coordinated in advance with the UNPC.

The UN approved the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, the text of which is annexed to the present resolution; (A/RES/36/103 9 December 1981).

The UN adopted the Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes (A/RES/50/172 27 FEB 1996).

This aspect of the complaint is rather ambiguous. It does not stipulate a place on the timeline. It is unclear if the objection is relative to the pre-Armistice period —- or the —- post-Six Day War period — or the — pre-Jordanian abandonment — or the — period between the abandonment and the PLO Declaration of Independence. THUS, the issue cannot be addressed — while not knowing the applicable conditions which apply and which laws the Arab Palestinians are claiming to be in their favor.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy smokescreen, Batman. You are bouncing around like a football because you do not have a case. Let's try to get a firm timeline on Palestinian rights.

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

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;​

These are the Palestinian's rights that already existed in1974. They mentioned the principles of the charter. (1945) The UN is not a legislative body. When they reference international law, they are referencing laws that predate the UN Charter.

So, when did these rights come into existence? I say it was when Palestine came into existence upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

 

[Shusha]

When did the Jewish rights to self-determination, independence and sovereignty come into existence? And through what legal instruments?

 

[Shusha]

When did the Jordanians acquire rights? When did the Catalans? Or the Kurds? Or the First Nations peoples of the Americas?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, --- not that I don't agree that (in general) all people have the benefit of making a self-determination, or that all nations should refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations --- it is not unique by any means to the Arab Palestinians.

• Article 1(2): "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"
• Article 2(7) - the prohibition against intervening: "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state"​

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974
​

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

(COMMENT)

What is your premise???

Now the timeline is important from the standpoint --- in that it took:

• "Quarter of a Century" for any mention of this after Israeli Independence (1948) and the Arab League attack.
• "Seven (7) years" after the Six-Day War (1967).
• "A year" after the Yom Kipper (Arab Sneak) Attack (1973).

√ It was an unjustified complaint registered 14 years before the 1988 PLO bid for Independence; presented a month before the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine
given in Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people).​

The entire anti-Israeli campaign since the conclusion of the 1973 Yom Kipper War was a conflict in which the Arab Palestinian seeks vengeance and retribution for the inability for the Arab Palestinian to achieve their objectives that they could not meet through more mature diplomatic and political means.

None of this is about the fake Political face concerned about sovereignty, self-determination and external interference. It is all about the crybaby Arab Palestinians that could not achieve their goals through peaceful means; and resorts to violence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Well, --- not that I don't agree that (in general) all people have the benefit of making a self-determination, or that all nations should refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations --- it is not unique by any means to the Arab Palestinians.

• Article 1(2): "respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples"
• Article 2(7) - the prohibition against intervening: "in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state"​

A/RES/3236 (XXIX)
22 November 1974
​

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

(COMMENT)

What is your premise???

Now the timeline is important from the standpoint --- in that it took:

• "Quarter of a Century" for any mention of this after Israeli Independence (1948) and the Arab League attack.
• "Seven (7) years" after the Six-Day War (1967).
• "A year" after the Yom Kipper (Arab Sneak) Attack (1973).

√ It was an unjustified complaint registered 14 years before the 1988 PLO bid for Independence; presented a month before the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference Resolution on Palestine
given in Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974 (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people).​

The entire anti-Israeli campaign since the conclusion of the 1973 Yom Kipper War was a conflict in which the Arab Palestinian seeks vengeance and retribution for the inability for the Arab Palestinian to achieve their objectives that they could not meet through more mature diplomatic and political means.

None of this is about the fake Political face concerned about sovereignty, self-determination and external interference. It is all about the crybaby Arab Palestinians that could not achieve their goals through peaceful means; and resorts to violence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sorry, Rocco, but I can't find anything in all of this verbosity that addresses my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Left Forum 2012 Islamophobia Session with Lamis Deek

 

[Shusha]

So, when did these rights come into existence? I say it was when Palestine came into existence upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

These rights (to self-determination, sovereignty and independence) don't "come into existence" for a certain people at a certain time. They are inherent and exist in all people at all times. The rights are not dependent on external influence or factors, but arise naturally through the will of the people. Would you agree or disagree?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, you don't find a connection because you don't want to admit the connection.

These are the Palestinian's rights that already existed in1974. They mentioned the principles of the charter. (1945) The UN is not a legislative body. When they reference international law, they are referencing laws that predate the UN Charter.

So, when did these rights come into existence? I say it was when Palestine came into existence upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

Sorry, Rocco, but I can't find anything in all of this verbosity that addresses my post.

(COMMENT)

You are correct. The UN, is not principally a "legislative body" (voting to make law). The UN can (and does) makes Treaties and Conventions (international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law - See the Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties); of which the UN Charter is one - legally binding. These are binding agreements and are an international source of law (See The Statute of the ICJ, Article 38 five sources of International Law); separate and distinct from non-binding resolutions [like your example A/RES/3236 (XXIX)].

While the Treaty of Lausanne is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States, the treaty itself promises nothing to the inhabitants --- formerly under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA). It was a Treaty of Peace between Turkey and the Allied Powers; which made no mention of Palestine as either a state, region or territory. AND while there were independent and sovereign states covered under the treaty that were detached from Turkey → there was no political subdivision in the purview of the British Mandate that was either independent (self-governing) or sovereign (possessing ultimate governmental authority or power).

Finally, since 15 May 1948, the Independence and sovereignty has been upheld by self-determination, several critical military engagements, and the ongoing conflict with a people that have sworn to continue the armed struggle as the overall strategy to assume control over Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Well, you don't find a connection because you don't want to admit the connection.

These are the Palestinian's rights that already existed in1974. They mentioned the principles of the charter. (1945) The UN is not a legislative body. When they reference international law, they are referencing laws that predate the UN Charter.

So, when did these rights come into existence? I say it was when Palestine came into existence upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Do you have a different event that would change my premise?

Sorry, Rocco, but I can't find anything in all of this verbosity that addresses my post.

(COMMENT)

You are correct. The UN, is not principally a "legislative body" (voting to make law). The UN can (and does) makes Treaties and Conventions (international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law - See the Article 2, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties); of which the UN Charter is one - legally binding. These are binding agreements and are an international source of law (See The Statute of the ICJ, Article 38 five sources of International Law); separate and distinct from non-binding resolutions [like your example A/RES/3236 (XXIX)].

While the Treaty of Lausanne is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of States, the treaty itself promises nothing to the inhabitants --- formerly under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA). It was a Treaty of Peace between Turkey and the Allied Powers; which made no mention of Palestine as either a state, region or territory. AND while there were independent and sovereign states covered under the treaty that were detached from Turkey → there was no political subdivision in the purview of the British Mandate that was either independent (self-governing) or sovereign (possessing ultimate governmental authority or power).

Finally, since 15 May 1948, the Independence and sovereignty has been upheld by self-determination, several critical military engagements, and the ongoing conflict with a people that have sworn to continue the armed struggle as the overall strategy to assume control over Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Still ducking.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Pro-Israel groups’ campaign against Linda Sarsour targets another progressive institution — New School

Eight days from now, the New School in New York
is scheduled to host a panel on anti-Semitism featuring two activists who support boycotting Israel, Linda Sarsour and Rebecca Vilkomerson of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Because that panel will denounce the ways that anti-Semitism is used to shield Israel from criticism, the New School is under attack from pro-Israel groups; it is under pressure to shut the debate down.

The panel is important because Linda Sarsour represents the main threat to the Democratic-left consensus in support of Israel today: the real possibility that the Democratic Party might begin to reflect its progressive base, and call for sanctions on Israel. Sarsour is threatening because she has been able to gain mainstream prestige– as a leader of the Women’s March against Trump– even though she is also an unapologetic advocate for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.

Pro-Israel groups’ campaign against Linda Sarsour targets another progressive institution — New School

 

[RoccoR]

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

Still ducking what?

Still ducking.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Still ducking what?

Still ducking.

Most Respectfully,
R

When did the Palestinians get their inherent inalienable rights?

 

[Shusha]

When did the Palestinians get their inherent inalienable rights?

The inherent, inalienable rights of all people to self-determination developed over the course of the last century. The idea was codified in the UN Charter, in UNGA 1514, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Probably other places as well, those just come to mind.

I think you make a mistake with your terminology, as well, and I think you do this deliberately. You use the term "Palestinian" as describing those people resident within certain borders at a certain period of time. And then claim that a people's inherent, inalienable rights arise under the auspices of that definition (a nationality).

But the rights to self-determination belong to "a peoples" and not to specific nationalities. How else would a peoples of a different cultural or ethnic groups have the right to self-determination and political independence if they were not permitted to distinguish themselves from their existing nationality? How can the Catalans have self-determination if they are not able to distinguish themselves from Spainards? How can the Jordanians have self-determination if they are not able to mark themselves as different than other people within the borders of the territory held in trust under the British Mandate?

"Palestinians" then becomes a nonsense word the way you are using it to claim self-determination for them. There is no Palestinian nationality and there never has been. Even if there HAD been such a nationality -- nationality is NOT the framework for determining a peoples with rights. Peoples have rights even without a nation or before a nation comes into existence.

The terminology you should be using is "peoples". The Jewish peoples and the Arab Palestinian peoples. Those are the two groups with rights we are discussing.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Does the truth in the answer lead to a conclusion that follows (as a matter of necessity) the truth of the premises (spoken or unspoken).

There is a concept about "Natural Rights" (inherent rights) → as distinguished from State-Granted Rights (legislative rights). The concept of "natural rights," are often referred to in the international community as human rights. The "Natural Rights" had a universal, inalienable, and indivisible quality to them. Natural Rights, Intrinsic Rights, Inalienable Rights or Inherent Rights all have one thing in common. They all are applicable in a faith-based reality; and not necessarily the rooted into the tangible reality of the here and now. Theoretically these universal, inalienable, and indivisible rights are entitlements and not benefits; totally independent and separate from the recognition by a governing authority codification (arranged binding agreements, conventions, protocols treaties or laws according to a customary or documented system or plan).

From a more non-secular perspective they are called God-given rights (faith-based); born into the inheritance of each individual, culture, people and nationality. While we know that these rights are documented into the nine (9) core international human rights instruments; we also know that they are not actually followed in the real-world.

IN REALITY: These Inherent Rights are not truly universal, inalienable, and indivisible through divine acquired; but, instead an invention of man.

When did the Palestinians get their inherent inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

We know from reading the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(which BTW was never entered into the force of law) that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

From a secular standpoint, there are no Faith-based Rights. Not every nation or culture accepts the rights of people as law. Sharia Law, the Halakha, European Laws, and American Laws. are all different.

Depending on the people, the inherent inalienable rights may differ. And if they can differ, then the are not truly "inherent inalienable rights."

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Does the truth in the answer lead to a conclusion that follows (as a matter of necessity) the truth of the premises (spoken or unspoken).

There is a concept about "Natural Rights" (inherent rights) → as distinguished from State-Granted Rights (legislative rights). The concept of "natural rights," are often referred to in the international community as human rights. The "Natural Rights" had a universal, inalienable, and indivisible quality to them. Natural Rights, Intrinsic Rights, Inalienable Rights or Inherent Rights all have one thing in common. They all are applicable in a faith-based reality; and not necessarily the rooted into the tangible reality of the here and now. Theoretically these universal, inalienable, and indivisible rights are entitlements and not benefits; totally independent and separate from the recognition by a governing authority codification (arranged binding agreements, conventions, protocols treaties or laws according to a customary or documented system or plan).

From a more non-secular perspective they are called God-given rights (faith-based); born into the inheritance of each individual, culture, people and nationality. While we know that these rights are documented into the nine (9) core international human rights instruments; we also know that they are not actually followed in the real-world.

IN REALITY: These Inherent Rights are not truly universal, inalienable, and indivisible through divine acquired; but, instead an invention of man.

When did the Palestinians get their inherent inalienable rights?

(COMMENT)

We know from reading the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)(which BTW was never entered into the force of law) that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

From a secular standpoint, there are no Faith-based Rights. Not every nation or culture accepts the rights of people as law. Sharia Law, the Halakha, European Laws, and American Laws. are all different.

Depending on the people, the inherent inalienable rights may differ. And if they can differ, then the are not truly "inherent inalienable rights."

View attachment 161770
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Samah Sabawi, Stephen Orlov, two award-winning playwrights

 

[P F Tinmore]

Susan Abulhawa PennBDS Opening Keynote

 

[P F Tinmore]

Linda Sarsour | Race in the U.S. | A free public course at The New School