Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[AzogtheDefiler]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You do this quite frequently.

The Arab Palestinians are a bonefide threat to the peace and security of Israel.

Indeed, the Palestinians should never have attacked the foreign colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants, yes most of them escaping persecution and predudice, where not part of colonial power. The Jewish People were offered an opportunity by the Allied Powers (as a collective and not a single nation) approved at the San Remo Convention, to establish in Palestine [an area under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)] a national home for the Jewish people. This area → the responsibility of which having been assume by the Allied Powers → pursuant to Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned (the Allied Powers).

Two Points:

ψ It was not an action Colonial action of the Allied Powers, as it was stipulated in the Mandate - AND - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" (ie the Arab Palestinians).

ψ Neither the "civil or religious" rights of the inhabitants, in the former Occupied Enemy Territory, have no effect on the establishment of government, independence or sovereignty. Religious and Civil Rights have no impact:

■ Even before the Treaty of Lausanne, at least three attempts were "made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government." The Arab Palestinians declined, in all three instances, to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

■ On the "rights" of the inhabitance in the post-War period following the Great War has no direct effect on:

• The principle of equal rights,
• Self-determination of peoples,
• The international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
• Territorial integrity,
• Political independence,

Nothing was taken from the Arab Palestinians until the outbreak of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

AGAIN!

You get this wrong, e v e r y s i n g l e t i m e...

Natural rights are only those rights which a government or legal system cannot deny. (Life, Liberty, Choice of destiny, Happiness and maybe even Religion → that sort of thing; NOT political rights.)

No person, no government, no legal system have denied these rights to the Arab Palestinians. What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Natural "inalienable rights" do not come from government. If you hold of some form of Abrahamic belief, you would have been taught that the Natural "inalienable rights" are bestowed upon man by the "creator" (or the Supreme Being). A peculiar feature to Natural Rights is that they are bestowed on the individual, and not a people, society or culture.

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

(COMMENT)

Q: What natural right do you believe has been "stripped" away from the Arab Palestinian?
A: None

Again, you are mixing-up the type and kind of rights.

✪ Positive Rights: Obligate, or Imposes a Duty on someone to take some action - or to provide something - to effect the rights upon others.
✪ Negative Rights: Requires a stay of action - placing an injuction someone, - or - non-interference.
​

The "Right to Life" is a "NEGATIVE" - "Natural Right" → the injunction against murder.
The "Right to Return" is (if it exists) is a man-made law. It is NOT a "Natural Right." The "Right to Return" (if it exists) is an injunction barring passage.

Most Respectfully,
R

What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Where do you get this shit, Rocco?

The Palestinians only attack the occupation and it is their right to do that.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

AGAIN!

You get this wrong, e v e r y s i n g l e t i m e...

Natural rights are only those rights which a government or legal system cannot deny. (Life, Liberty, Choice of destiny, Happiness and maybe even Religion → that sort of thing; NOT political rights.)

No person, no government, no legal system have denied these rights to the Arab Palestinians. What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Natural "inalienable rights" do not come from government. If you hold of some form of Abrahamic belief, you would have been taught that the Natural "inalienable rights" are bestowed upon man by the "creator" (or the Supreme Being). A peculiar feature to Natural Rights is that they are bestowed on the individual, and not a people, society or culture.

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

(COMMENT)

Q: What natural right do you believe has been "stripped" away from the Arab Palestinian?
A: None

Again, you are mixing-up the type and kind of rights.

✪ Positive Rights: Obligate, or Imposes a Duty on someone to take some action - or to provide something - to effect the rights upon others.
✪ Negative Rights: Requires a stay of action - placing an injuction someone, - or - non-interference.
​

The "Right to Life" is a "NEGATIVE" - "Natural Right" → the injunction against murder.
The "Right to Return" is (if it exists) is a man-made law. It is NOT a "Natural Right." The "Right to Return" (if it exists) is an injunction barring passage.

Most Respectfully,
R

What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Where do you get this shit, Rocco?

The Palestinians only attack the occupation and it is their right to do that.

Civilian targets are “the occupation”?

You silly Pom Pom flailers for Islamic terrorists are a hoot.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Hamas terrorist organization announced on Sunday that its indirect ceasefire talks with Israel have halted, The Associated Pressreported.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri blamed the impasse on the Palestinian Authority, which has voiced its strong opposition to the talks.

Abu Zuhri said that in response, Hamas would be escalating its protests in new locations along Gaza's borders with Israel.

(full article online)

Hamas: Ceasefire talks with Israel are over

Abbas’ Fatah faction and Hamas have been at odds since 2007, when Hamas violently took control of Gaza from Fatah.​

Why do they put that lie in every story?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

AGAIN!

You get this wrong, e v e r y s i n g l e t i m e...

Natural rights are only those rights which a government or legal system cannot deny. (Life, Liberty, Choice of destiny, Happiness and maybe even Religion → that sort of thing; NOT political rights.)

No person, no government, no legal system have denied these rights to the Arab Palestinians. What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Natural "inalienable rights" do not come from government. If you hold of some form of Abrahamic belief, you would have been taught that the Natural "inalienable rights" are bestowed upon man by the "creator" (or the Supreme Being). A peculiar feature to Natural Rights is that they are bestowed on the individual, and not a people, society or culture.

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

(COMMENT)

Q: What natural right do you believe has been "stripped" away from the Arab Palestinian?
A: None

Again, you are mixing-up the type and kind of rights.

✪ Positive Rights: Obligate, or Imposes a Duty on someone to take some action - or to provide something - to effect the rights upon others.
✪ Negative Rights: Requires a stay of action - placing an injuction someone, - or - non-interference.
​

The "Right to Life" is a "NEGATIVE" - "Natural Right" → the injunction against murder.
The "Right to Return" is (if it exists) is a man-made law. It is NOT a "Natural Right." The "Right to Return" (if it exists) is an injunction barring passage.

Most Respectfully,
R

What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Where do you get this shit, Rocco?

The Palestinians only attack the occupation and it is their right to do that.

Civilian targets are “the occupation”?

You silly Pom Pom flailers for Islamic terrorists are a hoot.

According to the IVGC.

 

[Ecocertifmrl]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You do this quite frequently.

The Arab Palestinians are a bonefide threat to the peace and security of Israel.

Indeed, the Palestinians should never have attacked the foreign colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants, yes most of them escaping persecution and predudice, where not part of colonial power. The Jewish People were offered an opportunity by the Allied Powers (as a collective and not a single nation) approved at the San Remo Convention, to establish in Palestine [an area under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)] a national home for the Jewish people. This area → the responsibility of which having been assume by the Allied Powers → pursuant to Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned (the Allied Powers).

Two Points:

ψ It was not an action Colonial action of the Allied Powers, as it was stipulated in the Mandate - AND - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" (ie the Arab Palestinians).

ψ Neither the "civil or religious" rights of the inhabitants, in the former Occupied Enemy Territory, have no effect on the establishment of government, independence or sovereignty. Religious and Civil Rights have no impact:

■ Even before the Treaty of Lausanne, at least three attempts were "made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government." The Arab Palestinians declined, in all three instances, to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

■ On the "rights" of the inhabitance in the post-War period following the Great War has no direct effect on:

• The principle of equal rights,
• Self-determination of peoples,
• The international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
• Territorial integrity,
• Political independence,

Nothing was taken from the Arab Palestinians until the outbreak of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Are you saying the popeye has more credibility than winnie the pooh cuz he's white?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

AGAIN!

You get this wrong, e v e r y s i n g l e t i m e...

Natural rights are only those rights which a government or legal system cannot deny. (Life, Liberty, Choice of destiny, Happiness and maybe even Religion → that sort of thing; NOT political rights.)

No person, no government, no legal system have denied these rights to the Arab Palestinians. What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Natural "inalienable rights" do not come from government. If you hold of some form of Abrahamic belief, you would have been taught that the Natural "inalienable rights" are bestowed upon man by the "creator" (or the Supreme Being). A peculiar feature to Natural Rights is that they are bestowed on the individual, and not a people, society or culture.

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

(COMMENT)

Q: What natural right do you believe has been "stripped" away from the Arab Palestinian?
A: None

Again, you are mixing-up the type and kind of rights.

✪ Positive Rights: Obligate, or Imposes a Duty on someone to take some action - or to provide something - to effect the rights upon others.
✪ Negative Rights: Requires a stay of action - placing an injuction someone, - or - non-interference.
​

The "Right to Life" is a "NEGATIVE" - "Natural Right" → the injunction against murder.
The "Right to Return" is (if it exists) is a man-made law. It is NOT a "Natural Right." The "Right to Return" (if it exists) is an injunction barring passage.

Most Respectfully,
R

What has happened is that the ugly Arab Palestinian has forfeited these rights through the use of coercion, intimidation, fear and terror, and armed engagement against others.

Where do you get this shit, Rocco?

The Palestinians only attack the occupation and it is their right to do that.

Civilian targets are “the occupation”?

You silly Pom Pom flailers for Islamic terrorists are a hoot.

According to the IVGC.

You make up this nonsense as you go along.

 

[Shusha]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You do this quite frequently.

The Arab Palestinians are a bonefide threat to the peace and security of Israel.

Indeed, the Palestinians should never have attacked the foreign colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants, yes most of them escaping persecution and predudice, where not part of colonial power. The Jewish People were offered an opportunity by the Allied Powers (as a collective and not a single nation) approved at the San Remo Convention, to establish in Palestine [an area under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)] a national home for the Jewish people. This area → the responsibility of which having been assume by the Allied Powers → pursuant to Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned (the Allied Powers).

Two Points:

ψ It was not an action Colonial action of the Allied Powers, as it was stipulated in the Mandate - AND - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" (ie the Arab Palestinians).

ψ Neither the "civil or religious" rights of the inhabitants, in the former Occupied Enemy Territory, have no effect on the establishment of government, independence or sovereignty. Religious and Civil Rights have no impact:

■ Even before the Treaty of Lausanne, at least three attempts were "made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government." The Arab Palestinians declined, in all three instances, to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

■ On the "rights" of the inhabitance in the post-War period following the Great War has no direct effect on:

• The principle of equal rights,
• Self-determination of peoples,
• The international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
• Territorial integrity,
• Political independence,

Nothing was taken from the Arab Palestinians until the outbreak of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You do this quite frequently.

Indeed, the Palestinians should never have attacked the foreign colonial settlers.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants, yes most of them escaping persecution and predudice, where not part of colonial power. The Jewish People were offered an opportunity by the Allied Powers (as a collective and not a single nation) approved at the San Remo Convention, to establish in Palestine [an area under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)] a national home for the Jewish people. This area → the responsibility of which having been assume by the Allied Powers → pursuant to Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned (the Allied Powers).

Two Points:

ψ It was not an action Colonial action of the Allied Powers, as it was stipulated in the Mandate - AND - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" (ie the Arab Palestinians).

ψ Neither the "civil or religious" rights of the inhabitants, in the former Occupied Enemy Territory, have no effect on the establishment of government, independence or sovereignty. Religious and Civil Rights have no impact:

■ Even before the Treaty of Lausanne, at least three attempts were "made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government." The Arab Palestinians declined, in all three instances, to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

■ On the "rights" of the inhabitance in the post-War period following the Great War has no direct effect on:

• The principle of equal rights,
• Self-determination of peoples,
• The international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
• Territorial integrity,
• Political independence,

Nothing was taken from the Arab Palestinians until the outbreak of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

 

[Shusha]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You do this quite frequently.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants, yes most of them escaping persecution and predudice, where not part of colonial power. The Jewish People were offered an opportunity by the Allied Powers (as a collective and not a single nation) approved at the San Remo Convention, to establish in Palestine [an area under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA)] a national home for the Jewish people. This area → the responsibility of which having been assume by the Allied Powers → pursuant to Article 16 (Treaty of Lausanne) after the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic renounces all rights and title to the future of these territories to be settled by the parties concerned (the Allied Powers).

Two Points:

ψ It was not an action Colonial action of the Allied Powers, as it was stipulated in the Mandate - AND - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities" (ie the Arab Palestinians).

ψ Neither the "civil or religious" rights of the inhabitants, in the former Occupied Enemy Territory, have no effect on the establishment of government, independence or sovereignty. Religious and Civil Rights have no impact:

■ Even before the Treaty of Lausanne, at least three attempts were "made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government." The Arab Palestinians declined, in all three instances, to participate in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

■ On the "rights" of the inhabitance in the post-War period following the Great War has no direct effect on:

• The principle of equal rights,
• Self-determination of peoples,
• The international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
• Territorial integrity,
• Political independence,

Nothing was taken from the Arab Palestinians until the outbreak of hostilities.

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Did the world powers have the authority to strip the Palestinians of their natural rights? The Palestinians have rightly said no for a hundred years.

You consistently post pages of external interference.

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

Are you asking my opinion? Conquest is it has always been. Does the US give TX and Cali back to Mexico? Should Constantinople be returned to the Christians? Those "people" have 53+ other mostly Islamic countries to move to. They should.

 

[Shusha]

Are you saying the Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

Are you asking my opinion? Conquest is it has always been. Does the US give TX and Cali back to Mexico? Should Constantinople be returned to the Christians? Those "people" have 53+ other mostly Islamic countries to move to. They should.

Not so much then that the Native Americans can't have self-determination then? Only that they must win it through violent military force and conquest, right? I mean, you believe that if they could they would have the right to, yes?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I am

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

Are you asking my opinion? Conquest is it has always been. Does the US give TX and Cali back to Mexico? Should Constantinople be returned to the Christians? Those "people" have 53+ other mostly Islamic countries to move to. They should.

Not so much then that the Native Americans can't have self-determination then? Only that they must win it through violent military force and conquest, right? I mean, you believe that if they could they would have the right to, yes?

Did you just answer my question with a question? That is freaking rude.

 

[Shusha]

Why? Why would Arab Palestinians have no rights to self-determination and sovereignty?

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

Are you asking my opinion? Conquest is it has always been. Does the US give TX and Cali back to Mexico? Should Constantinople be returned to the Christians? Those "people" have 53+ other mostly Islamic countries to move to. They should.

Not so much then that the Native Americans can't have self-determination then? Only that they must win it through violent military force and conquest, right? I mean, you believe that if they could they would have the right to, yes?

Did you just answer my question with a question? That is freaking rude.

I'm just trying to understand your POV.

No, the US does not have to give TX and CA back to Mexico. Both Mexicans and Amercians have self-determination and sovereignty. The territory each expresses that self-determination and sovereignty is a matter of treaties between the two sovereigns. Same answer with respect to Constantinople. Existing treaties have taken care of this.

We are discussing peoples who have no self-determination and sovereignty.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Same reason Native Americans don’t have that in the US. They were conquered. All mostly Islam nations are not exactly tolerant. Don’t want another one. Pass

So you are not against self-determination and sovereignty for peoples -- you just believe that conquest is the only way to obtain it? And once conquered peoples lose that right in perpetuity?

Are you asking my opinion? Conquest is it has always been. Does the US give TX and Cali back to Mexico? Should Constantinople be returned to the Christians? Those "people" have 53+ other mostly Islamic countries to move to. They should.

Not so much then that the Native Americans can't have self-determination then? Only that they must win it through violent military force and conquest, right? I mean, you believe that if they could they would have the right to, yes?

Did you just answer my question with a question? That is freaking rude.

I'm just trying to understand your POV.

No, the US does not have to give TX and CA back to Mexico. Both Mexicans and Amercians have self-determination and sovereignty. The territory each expresses that self-determination and sovereignty is a matter of treaties between the two sovereigns. Same answer with respect to Constantinople. Existing treaties have taken care of this.

We are discussing peoples who have no self-determination and sovereignty.

These peoples are Jordanians and Egyptians. There is no "Arab Palestinian". Same as with Native Americans, they need to assimilate or move. Israel gave many a chance to assimilate. Some did but most did not. Now they are SOL. They need to MOVE. Or conquer their land back. Israel will not give the West Bank back and will not lift the blockade on Gaza for obvious reasons. So yes, they have no right to self determination or sovereignty. Firstly because they don't even know what it would look like and secondly because it would create another dangerous Islamic regime.

 

[Shusha]

These peoples are Jordanians and Egyptians. There is no "Arab Palestinian".

That is an argument I can find merit in. That is - the argument that Jordan is the state for the Arab Palestinian people.

Firstly because they don't even know what it would look like

They haven't taken the steps necessary for self-determination and sovereignty. Yes, I agree with that as well.

and secondly because it would create another dangerous Islamic regime.

They haven't the ability to "live peacefully with their neighbors". Yes, I agree this is another valid argument.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

These peoples are Jordanians and Egyptians. There is no "Arab Palestinian".

That is an argument I can find merit in. That is - the argument that Jordan is the state for the Arab Palestinian people.

Firstly because they don't even know what it would look like

They haven't taken the steps necessary for self-determination and sovereignty. Yes, I agree with that as well.

and secondly because it would create another dangerous Islamic regime.

They haven't the ability to "live peacefully with their neighbors". Yes, I agree this is another valid argument.

So then why are we debating, sir?

 

[Shusha]

These peoples are Jordanians and Egyptians. There is no "Arab Palestinian".

That is an argument I can find merit in. That is - the argument that Jordan is the state for the Arab Palestinian people.

Firstly because they don't even know what it would look like

They haven't taken the steps necessary for self-determination and sovereignty. Yes, I agree with that as well.

and secondly because it would create another dangerous Islamic regime.

They haven't the ability to "live peacefully with their neighbors". Yes, I agree this is another valid argument.

So then why are we debating, sir?

Were we debating? I thought I was only asking for clarification on your POV.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

These peoples are Jordanians and Egyptians. There is no "Arab Palestinian".

That is an argument I can find merit in. That is - the argument that Jordan is the state for the Arab Palestinian people.

Firstly because they don't even know what it would look like

They haven't taken the steps necessary for self-determination and sovereignty. Yes, I agree with that as well.

and secondly because it would create another dangerous Islamic regime.

They haven't the ability to "live peacefully with their neighbors". Yes, I agree this is another valid argument.

So then why are we debating, sir?

Were we debating? I thought I was only asking for clarification on your POV.

My error. Sorry.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Now, "where" would I get such an idea? Why of course: Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

Where do you get this shit, Rocco?

The Palestinians only attack the occupation and it is their right to do that.

(SPECIFICALLY)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
Penal legislation. V. Penalties. Death penalty
ARTICLE 68 [ Link ]

Protected persons (that would be the Arab Palestinians) who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (that would be the Israelis you say you have a "right" to attack), but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

_____________________________________
•• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ••
General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
Entry into Force 23 March 1976
​

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

_____________________________________
​

This insistence that the Arab Palestinians have some "right" to violence is simply WRONG!!! The question is, where do you get the notion that you, or any other Arab Palestinians have the "right" to peddle your propaganda that you have some legal authority to "commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power" --- OR --- the authority to incite others to violence based on this notion?

Most Respectfully,
R