The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry

[P F Tinmore]

Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar has thrown the spotlight on the Palestinian cause

If the visit had gone ahead, it would have received modest media coverage and been wrapped up in a couple of days. Netanyahu’s decision, though, has garnered it much wider exposure, and helped to publicise its objectives. Indeed, Miftah has organised several trips for members of the US Congress in the past, but could never have thought that it would one day have AIPAC and other groups in America’s pro-Israel Lobby, as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, criticising Israel and thus exposing its sham democracy and fear of the truth.

Apart from anything else, Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar visiting the country has highlighted the kind of restrictions imposed by the Israeli occupation on the free movement of the Palestinians, not because of alleged “security” reasons, but simply because a Palestinian is a Palestinian, even if elected to the US Congress. Rashida Tlaib now has every right to let the world know — if we didn’t already —that Benjamin Netanyahu is no advocate for peace; she can also use this ban to throw the spotlight on the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s brutal military occupation, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar has thrown the spotlight on the Palestinian cause

 

[Mindful]

Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar has thrown the spotlight on the Palestinian cause

If the visit had gone ahead, it would have received modest media coverage and been wrapped up in a couple of days. Netanyahu’s decision, though, has garnered it much wider exposure, and helped to publicise its objectives. Indeed, Miftah has organised several trips for members of the US Congress in the past, but could never have thought that it would one day have AIPAC and other groups in America’s pro-Israel Lobby, as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, criticising Israel and thus exposing its sham democracy and fear of the truth.

Apart from anything else, Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar visiting the country has highlighted the kind of restrictions imposed by the Israeli occupation on the free movement of the Palestinians, not because of alleged “security” reasons, but simply because a Palestinian is a Palestinian, even if elected to the US Congress. Rashida Tlaib now has every right to let the world know — if we didn’t already —that Benjamin Netanyahu is no advocate for peace; she can also use this ban to throw the spotlight on the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s brutal military occupation, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar has thrown the spotlight on the Palestinian cause

As if it was ever off it, one way or another.

Tlaib ran for Congress on the platform of improving conditions for her constituents, not the hatred and demonising of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

Israel’s ban on Tlaib and Omar has thrown the spotlight on the Palestinian cause

Nonsense. Tlaib and Omar have thrown the harsh light of inquiry on a pair of angry (rather typical), Moslems who are obsessed with hating Jews and have no real interest in meeting the responsibilities of an elected representative.

They are your heroes because you share their ideology of hate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

A recap of the Tlaib/Omar screech fest.

Lies, lies and more lies: The Omar/Tlaib press conference

Lies, lies and more lies: The Omar/Tlaib press conference

Refuting and debunking antisemitic, Israelophobic Congress members Ilhan Omar’s and Rashida Tlaib’s egregious lies in their August 19th press conference.


Tlaib/Omar repeatedly falsely claimed that Israel occupies “Palestinian land” and demanded an “end to occupation” – their Orwellian method of calling for Israel’s destruction: In fact, Israel is not an “occupier” because Israel, Judea/Samaria (a/k/a the 'West Bank') and Jerusalem are all lands designated for the Jewish homeland, both historically and under binding international law. There has never been a state of “Palestine,” ever. The only way one can be an “occupier” is to occupy another nation’s sovereign land. Israel is not, and cannot be an “occupier” of her own land. Additionally, the Palestinians rejected a state 4 times in the last 19 years on virtually all the disputed lands—because it required them accepting Israel as a Jewish State and agreeing to no further claims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A recap of the Tlaib/Omar screech fest.

Lies, lies and more lies: The Omar/Tlaib press conference

Lies, lies and more lies: The Omar/Tlaib press conference

Refuting and debunking antisemitic, Israelophobic Congress members Ilhan Omar’s and Rashida Tlaib’s egregious lies in their August 19th press conference.


Tlaib/Omar repeatedly falsely claimed that Israel occupies “Palestinian land” and demanded an “end to occupation” – their Orwellian method of calling for Israel’s destruction: In fact, Israel is not an “occupier” because Israel, Judea/Samaria (a/k/a the 'West Bank') and Jerusalem are all lands designated for the Jewish homeland, both historically and under binding international law. There has never been a state of “Palestine,” ever. The only way one can be an “occupier” is to occupy another nation’s sovereign land. Israel is not, and cannot be an “occupier” of her own land. Additionally, the Palestinians rejected a state 4 times in the last 19 years on virtually all the disputed lands—because it required them accepting Israel as a Jewish State and agreeing to no further claims.

WOW, so many unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bringing up the "Talking Point Issue. I'm not at all sure you know what a "talking point is (from the way in which you are using it); as if it were something bad or in some derogatory fashion. Let's review your vocabulary and application.

​

Now, the "Talking Point" in our discussions is in bold letters as the Name of the topic under discussion." The description "The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry" is the "talking point" (the Subject of the Discussion). Each contribution made by our members is an offering in perspective. In a Complex Talking Point, the topic under discussion can be broken down into points "that lends support to the discussion." When the Moderator or the Original Poster (a) makes the "point" to get back on topic, or (b) talks you - you are outside the topic of discussion, they are talking about stay on point (the talking point). The origin of the author "Israeli" has no impact on the contribution either being "Sound" or "Valid."

​

For you to make this claim (or complaint) that it is an "Israeli Talking Point" is actually a compliment. You are saying the "contributor" is staying on point, and you are suggesting the author of the point is Israeli. To be both "sound and valid" is not dependent or related to the author's origin.

WOW, so many unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

(REFERENCE)

occupation ❖ This is a method of acquiring title to territory, derived from occupatio in
Roman Law. Only territory that is not subject to any sovereignty ( terra nullius ) may be acquired by occupation: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12 . Occupation, ‘based . . . merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority’: Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 45 and 46. When the territory is uninhabited or uninhabitable, less is needed by way of the display of authority: Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105 . The locus classicus on title to territory by occupation is the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; see also British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1904 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 21 ; Grisbådarna Arbitration ( 1909 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 155 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953 I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Frontier Land Case 1959 I.C.J. Rep. 209 ; Temple of Preah Vihear Case 1962 I.C.J. Rep. 6 . It has been suggested that occupation is now obsolescent as most of the temperate territory on the earth is subject to some State’s sovereignty: Jennings , The Acquisition of Territory in International Law ( 1963 ), 20. See also Shaw , Title to Territory in Africa ( 1986 ).
SOURCE: Page 435, Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •

(COMMENT → Now to get back on topic)

Under International Law, there is a definition of an "Occupation" 9as we are discussing here, has two components (supra):

◈ the intention and will to act as sovereign,

◈ some actual exercise or display of such authority’​

For my edification, and in the interest of staying on point, please teach me how the Arab Palestinian has (since Novemeber 1988 → 30 years ago) demonstrated these two characteristics qualities. Otherwise, what I see is that on 1 August 1988, the State of Israel had control over the territory "terra nullius."

quote="Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law"]
terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection
with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over
territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid
“occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at
the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B,
No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687 , ‘The only territory which can be
the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is
uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for
individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising
sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A.
1105 ; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12 . And see Crawford , The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
[/quote]​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bringing up the "Talking Point Issue. I'm not at all sure you know what a "talking point is (from the way in which you are using it); as if it were something bad or in some derogatory fashion. Let's review your vocabulary and application.

View attachment 275463
​

Now, the "Talking Point" in our discussions is in bold letters as the Name of the topic under discussion." The description "The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry" is the "talking point" (the Subject of the Discussion). Each contribution made by our members is an offering in perspective. In a Complex Talking Point, the topic under discussion can be broken down into points "that lends support to the discussion." When the Moderator or the Original Poster (a) makes the "point" to get back on topic, or (b) talks you - you are outside the topic of discussion, they are talking about stay on point (the talking point). The origin of the author "Israeli" has no impact on the contribution either being "Sound" or "Valid."

View attachment 275469
​

For you to make this claim (or complaint) that it is an "Israeli Talking Point" is actually a compliment. You are saying the "contributor" is staying on point, and you are suggesting the author of the point is Israeli. To be both "sound and valid" is not dependent or related to the author's origin.

WOW, so many unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

(REFERENCE)

occupation ❖ This is a method of acquiring title to territory, derived from occupatio in
Roman Law. Only territory that is not subject to any sovereignty ( terra nullius ) may be acquired by occupation: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12 . Occupation, ‘based . . . merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority’: Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 45 and 46. When the territory is uninhabited or uninhabitable, less is needed by way of the display of authority: Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105 . The locus classicus on title to territory by occupation is the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; see also British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1904 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 21 ; Grisbådarna Arbitration ( 1909 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 155 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953 I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Frontier Land Case 1959 I.C.J. Rep. 209 ; Temple of Preah Vihear Case 1962 I.C.J. Rep. 6 . It has been suggested that occupation is now obsolescent as most of the temperate territory on the earth is subject to some State’s sovereignty: Jennings , The Acquisition of Territory in International Law ( 1963 ), 20. See also Shaw , Title to Territory in Africa ( 1986 ).
SOURCE: Page 435, Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •

(COMMENT → Now to get back on topic)

Under International Law, there is a definition of an "Occupation" 9as we are discussing here, has two components (supra):

◈ the intention and will to act as sovereign,

◈ some actual exercise or display of such authority’​

For my edification, and in the interest of staying on point, please teach me how the Arab Palestinian has (since Novemeber 1988 → 30 years ago) demonstrated these two characteristics qualities. Otherwise, what I see is that on 1 August 1988, the State of Israel had control over the territory "terra nullius."

quote="Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law"]
terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection
with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over
territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid
“occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at
the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B,
No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687 , ‘The only territory which can be
the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is
uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for
individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising
sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A.
1105 ; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12 . And see Crawford , The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
​

​

Most Respectfully,
R[/QUOTE]

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory

750,000 refugees and 70 years of war, and counting, does not sound peaceful to me.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Can we look at this issue, both from a rational standpoint and a more practical-political standpoint?

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory

750,000 refugees and 70 years of war, and counting, does not sound peaceful to me.

(COMMENT)

In reality, most major political confrontations (especially when dominated by concepts of international law) come in direct conflict with international humanitarian law (IHL) and/or human rights law (HRL). And nearly all serious active revolutionary conflicts, revolts or uprisings (including those of Jihadist, Guerrillas Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) are rooted or strongly influenced by either very emotional conditions or motivated by sociopathic behaviors. In very few conflicts (but it does happen). This is true with the New People's Army (NPA) in the Philippine Islands and the various (active) Arab Palestinian militants operating in the Popularized Occupied Territories (POT) in the Middle East. These types of organizations usually have one (or more) characteristics in common:

◈ Disfunctional organizational set that rallies behind manefesto declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its organization and leadership.
◈ Manifesting itself in the framework masquarading as patriotism.
◈ Revoling around activities with a particular long-term aim.
◈ Extreme antisocial attitudes and operational disconnect with anything resembling the Rule of Law or an Ethics Driven Morality.
◈ A total lack of conscience in the execution of Lethal Operations.​

This constant attachment to this 750,000 number in terms of refugees is supposed to be impressive, by has no relevance to an argument today. The number is an expression of an irrational motive. BTW, in the real world (ie every other place in the world with refugees) given there are no new arrivals, the population of the refugees goes "down" and NOT "up."

How many of the Arab Palestinian "demands" are irrational?

When there is a clash with people that hold irrational vendetta or expectations as a demand, it transitions and becomes a national security threat. That is a game-changer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You keep bringing up the "Talking Point Issue. I'm not at all sure you know what a "talking point is (from the way in which you are using it); as if it were something bad or in some derogatory fashion. Let's review your vocabulary and application.

View attachment 275463
​

Now, the "Talking Point" in our discussions is in bold letters as the Name of the topic under discussion." The description "The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry" is the "talking point" (the Subject of the Discussion). Each contribution made by our members is an offering in perspective. In a Complex Talking Point, the topic under discussion can be broken down into points "that lends support to the discussion." When the Moderator or the Original Poster (a) makes the "point" to get back on topic, or (b) talks you - you are outside the topic of discussion, they are talking about stay on point (the talking point). The origin of the author "Israeli" has no impact on the contribution either being "Sound" or "Valid."

View attachment 275469
​

For you to make this claim (or complaint) that it is an "Israeli Talking Point" is actually a compliment. You are saying the "contributor" is staying on point, and you are suggesting the author of the point is Israeli. To be both "sound and valid" is not dependent or related to the author's origin.

WOW, so many unsubstantiated Israeli talking points.

(REFERENCE)

occupation ❖ This is a method of acquiring title to territory, derived from occupatio in
Roman Law. Only territory that is not subject to any sovereignty ( terra nullius ) may be acquired by occupation: Western Sahara Case 1975 I.C.J. Rep. 12 . Occupation, ‘based . . . merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority’: Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53 at 45 and 46. When the territory is uninhabited or uninhabitable, less is needed by way of the display of authority: Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 1105 . The locus classicus on title to territory by occupation is the Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; see also British Guiana Boundary Case ( 1904 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 21 ; Grisbådarna Arbitration ( 1909 ) 11 R.I.A.A. 155 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953 I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Frontier Land Case 1959 I.C.J. Rep. 209 ; Temple of Preah Vihear Case 1962 I.C.J. Rep. 6 . It has been suggested that occupation is now obsolescent as most of the temperate territory on the earth is subject to some State’s sovereignty: Jennings , The Acquisition of Territory in International Law ( 1963 ), 20. See also Shaw , Title to Territory in Africa ( 1986 ).
SOURCE: Page 435, Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law •

(COMMENT → Now to get back on topic)

Under International Law, there is a definition of an "Occupation" 9as we are discussing here, has two components (supra):

◈ the intention and will to act as sovereign,

◈ some actual exercise or display of such authority’​

For my edification, and in the interest of staying on point, please teach me how the Arab Palestinian has (since Novemeber 1988 → 30 years ago) demonstrated these two characteristics qualities. Otherwise, what I see is that on 1 August 1988, the State of Israel had control over the territory "terra nullius."

quote="Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law"]
terra nullius ‘The expression “ terra nullius ” was a legal term of art employed in connection
with “occupation” as one of the accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty over
territory. “Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory otherwise than by cession or succession, it was a cardinal condition of a valid
“occupation” that the territory should be terra nullius— a territory belonging to no-one—at
the time of the act alleged to constitute the “occupation” . . .’: Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 39. Cf . Eastern Greenland, Legal Status of, Case ( 1933 ) P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B,
No. 53 at 44 and 63. In the words of 1 Oppenheim 687 , ‘The only territory which can be
the object of occupation is that which does not already belong to another state, whether it is
uninhabited, or inhabited by persons whose community is not considered to be a state; for
individuals may live on as territory without forming themselves into a state proper exercising
sovereignty over such territory’. See also Clipperton Island Case ( 1931 ) 2 R.I.A.A.
1105 ; Island of Palmas Case ( 1928 ) 2 R.I.A.A. 829 ; Minquiers and Ecrehos Case 1953
I.C.J. Rep. 47 ; Rann of Kutch Case ( 1968 ) 17 R.I.A.A. 1 ; Western Sahara Case 1975
I.C.J. Rep. 12 . And see Crawford , The Creation of States in International Law (2nd ed.),
265–268. The process whereby territory already subject to the sovereignty of another State
may be acquired—and by very much the same method as for occupation —is referred to as
prescription ( see prescription, acquisitive ).
​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory

750,000 refugees and 70 years of war, and counting, does not sound peaceful to me.

There’s no expectation of “peaceful” from a belligerent, angry, unreformed politico-religious ideology invented by an Arab warlord.

You are unaware that “refugees” were a result of actions by combined Arab armies and 70 years of wars waged and lost by Arabs represents generational failures by Arabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Can we look at this issue, both from a rational standpoint and a more practical-political standpoint?

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory

750,000 refugees and 70 years of war, and counting, does not sound peaceful to me.

(COMMENT)

In reality, most major political confrontations (especially when dominated by concepts of international law) come in direct conflict with international humanitarian law (IHL) and/or human rights law (HRL). And nearly all serious active revolutionary conflicts, revolts or uprisings (including those of Jihadist, Guerrillas Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) are rooted or strongly influenced by either very emotional conditions or motivated by sociopathic behaviors. In very few conflicts (but it does happen). This is true with the New People's Army (NPA) in the Philippine Islands and the various (active) Arab Palestinian militants operating in the Popularized Occupied Territories (POT) in the Middle East. These types of organizations usually have one (or more) characteristics in common:

◈ Disfunctional organizational set that rallies behind manefesto declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its organization and leadership.
◈ Manifesting itself in the framework masquarading as patriotism.
◈ Revoling around activities with a particular long-term aim.
◈ Extreme antisocial attitudes and operational disconnect with anything resembling the Rule of Law or an Ethics Driven Morality.
◈ A total lack of conscience in the execution of Lethal Operations.​

This constant attachment to this 750,000 number in terms of refugees is supposed to be impressive, by has no relevance to an argument today. The number is an expression of an irrational motive. BTW, in the real world (ie every other place in the world with refugees) given there are no new arrivals, the population of the refugees goes "down" and NOT "up."

How many of the Arab Palestinian "demands" are irrational?

View attachment 275486 When there is a clash with people that hold irrational vendetta or expectations as a demand, it transitions and becomes a national security threat. That is a game-changer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's goal has been all of Palestine without the Palestinians since 1947. Israel has expelled 750,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949. Half of those were expelled before the 1948 war. Israel has expelled Palestinians up to today.

Is that rational?

Israel is literally wiping Palestine off the map but they always whine about national security.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty over territory

There’s no expectation of “peaceful” from a belligerent, angry, unreformed politico-religious ideology invented by an Arab warlord.

(COMMENT)

Absolutely, I agree that there is NO reasonable expectation of "peace" in my time. Maybe someday, but not in my lifetime. And there is, at least for several generations into the future, a crop of offspring that had been corrupted in the Arab Palestinian Education System.

You are unaware that “refugees” were a result of actions by combined Arab armies and 70 years of wars waged and lost by Arabs represents generational failures by Arabs.

(COMMENT)

Yes, and about 80%-85% of those (arguable) refugees (more like displaced persons) are deceased.

West BanK:

65 years and over: 3.52% (male 44,662 /female 53,943) (2018 est.)​

Gaza Strip:

65 years and over: 2.58% (male 24,863 /female 22,607) (2018 est.)​

TOTALS:

65 years and over: male 69,525/76550 Total: = 146,075​

That is not taking into consideration that of all Arab Palestinians over the age of 65 were not displaced in 1948, thus not all of today's 146,075 Arab Palestinians are actually refugees.

This is why, in part, when looking at refugee demonstrators, you do not see many elderly, 65 years of age and older. If you are an Arab Palestinian and you are age 65, you cannot be a refugee. You can be a descendant of a Refugee, just as I am a 2d Generation Descendant of a refugee (from Europe).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Israel's goal has been all of Palestine without the Palestinians since 1947. Israel has expelled 750,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949. Half of those were expelled before the 1948 war. Israel has expelled Palestinians up to today.

Is that rational?

Israel is literally wiping Palestine off the map but they always whine about national security.

(COMMENT)

Political Platforms change over time.

I can see where you might want to be concerned if the Israelis were actually doing that. But they are not. Those are boogyman tales angry and hateful Arab Palestinians parents teach their children. But the reality is, that almost all of the Arab Palestinian deaths in the 21st Century, were a result of counter-attacks and counter-strikes after a hostile attack by Arab Palestinians. And even at that, most of the casualties are collateral damages because the Arab Palestinians failed to follow Customary and IHL in terms of proximity. You can see that every single day as the Arab Palestinians use civilians to create havoc along the border. Or how the Arab Palestinians encourage Arab Palestinians to attack Jews at every opportunity.

• Fatah: Murdering children is "legitimate human struggle" - when killer is Palestinian and victims are Israelis •

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SomeDudeUDunno]

I've come up with a good nickname for Rashida Tlaib, 'Rashida NoLabia'...still haven't come up with one for Omar yet, working on it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

US Reps. Tlaib, Omar sparked a debate against Israel: Analyst

 

[Hollie]

Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall
that stopped suicide bombings

Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall that stopped suicide bombings - PMW Bulletins

Rashida Tlaib, US Congresswoman:
"Walls are destructive, not productive"

Ramadan Shalah, Head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad:
"[Suicide] operations... is an option which exists... However... there's the separation wall, which is an obstacle for the Resistance [terror]. If it did not exist, the situation would be completely different."

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

I wonder what the sense of the Congress would be if some nation told America that it could not implement a Border Security Measure against a known and confirmed national security threat?

ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

◈ The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, ◈The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

​

Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall
that stopped suicide bombings
Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall that stopped suicide bombings - PMW Bulletins

❖

❖

❖​

(COMMENT)

There is nothing even remotely friendly about the relationship between the State of Israel and the so-called State of Palestine.

Normally, the first effort in reestablishing the peace is to separate the belligerents.

This noise being made by the Congresswomen is nothing more then the incitement to violence, to reduce the defenses of the most developed state in the Middle East, and to create opportunities for the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to exploit any vulnerabilities as a result of implementing → for a given particular end in favor of the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

I wonder what the sense of the Congress would be if some nation told America that it could not implement a Border Security Measure against a known and confirmed national security threat?

ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

◈ The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, ◈The duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter,

View attachment 275673
​

Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall
that stopped suicide bombings
Rashida Tlaib criticized the wall that stopped suicide bombings - PMW Bulletins

❖

❖

❖​

(COMMENT)

There is nothing even remotely friendly about the relationship between the State of Israel and the so-called State of Palestine.

Normally, the first effort in reestablishing the peace is to separate the belligerents.

This noise being made by the Congresswomen is nothing more then the incitement to violence, to reduce the defenses of the most developed state in the Middle East, and to create opportunities for the various Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to exploit any vulnerabilities as a result of implementing → for a given particular end in favor of the HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

Have to agree, Rocco. What I find embarrassing for Rashida Tlaib is just how thoroughly she was dismissed by the statement (and actions), of the Islamic Jihad mouthpiece. Walls as a security have worked to Israel’s benefit to prevent suicide / mass murder attacks.

I believe what Rashida Tlaib also chooses to ignore are the near daily sermons and calls to gee-had by Islamic clerics and Palestinian leaders who incite the vacant-minded to attacks aimed at Israel. I long for the day when Rashida Tlaib and those like her will reject the hate spew and unequivocally condemn the hate that is so prevalent in their politico-religious ideology.

Unfortunately the reprehensible Islamic Jihad suicide bomber, (the human high explosives/nail delivery vehicle), I mean “martyr” , is still being bred to throw pain and suffering onto Islam’s bonfire of hatred.

 

[EduardBernstein]

RE: The Latest: Israeli official: Tlaib, Omar barred from entry
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Can we look at this issue, both from a rational standpoint and a more practical-political standpoint?

“Occupation” being legally an original means of peacefully acquiring sovereignty
over territory

750,000 refugees and 70 years of war, and counting, does not sound peaceful to me.

(COMMENT)

In reality, most major political confrontations (especially when dominated by concepts of international law) come in direct conflict with international humanitarian law (IHL) and/or human rights law (HRL). And nearly all serious active revolutionary conflicts, revolts or uprisings (including those of Jihadist, Guerrillas Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) are rooted or strongly influenced by either very emotional conditions or motivated by sociopathic behaviors. In very few conflicts (but it does happen). This is true with the New People's Army (NPA) in the Philippine Islands and the various (active) Arab Palestinian militants operating in the Popularized Occupied Territories (POT) in the Middle East. These types of organizations usually have one (or more) characteristics in common:

◈ Disfunctional organizational set that rallies behind manefesto declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its organization and leadership.
◈ Manifesting itself in the framework masquarading as patriotism.
◈ Revoling around activities with a particular long-term aim.
◈ Extreme antisocial attitudes and operational disconnect with anything resembling the Rule of Law or an Ethics Driven Morality.
◈ A total lack of conscience in the execution of Lethal Operations.​

This constant attachment to this 750,000 number in terms of refugees is supposed to be impressive, by has no relevance to an argument today. The number is an expression of an irrational motive. BTW, in the real world (ie every other place in the world with refugees) given there are no new arrivals, the population of the refugees goes "down" and NOT "up."

How many of the Arab Palestinian "demands" are irrational?

View attachment 275486 When there is a clash with people that hold irrational vendetta or expectations as a demand, it transitions and becomes a national security threat. That is a game-changer.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel's goal has been all of Palestine without the Palestinians since 1947. Israel has expelled 750,000 Palestinians between 1947 and 1949. Half of those were expelled before the 1948 war. Israel has expelled Palestinians up to today.

Is that rational?

Israel is literally wiping Palestine off the map but they always whine about national security.

Blame the Jews, when your life is a failure. Palestine shouldn't have been antisemitic Nazis.

 

[Mindful]