Widening Of The Buffer Zone

[Mindful]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

 

[Challenger]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

 

[Mindful]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

 

[Challenger]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

 

[Mindful]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

 

[Challenger]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

 

[Mindful]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

 

[Challenger]

America, their "second home".

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

 

[Mindful]

You're not fit to hold a conversation.

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.

 

[Challenger]

You asked; I answered. If you can't handle the truth.....not my problem.

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.

But still a Quasar compared to you, my sweet.

 

[Mindful]

You wouldn't know truth if it hit you in the face, you silly person.

Your "truth"= Hasbara, no thanks.

Your sort is prolific on the Internet. You all repeat the same rubbish, ad nauseum. Like you are clones.

Dear Pot...love Kettle.

You thrive on this sort of stuff, don't you?

It's obvious you're not too bright.

But still a Quasar compared to you, my sweet.

A what?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

The beginning? Really? In that case you better start packing, sell up and get the next plane to wherever your ancestors came from. You're living on land originally owned by the Adena people, or if they're extinct, any Algonquian native Americans.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

As we've discussed, the unfolding process of change in direction of progress pertaining to the recognition of "indigenous rights" has been slow but steady. It has only been in the dawn of the 21st Century that grave consideration has been given to the issue --- and it is still not totally acceptable. Even now, it is impossible to roll back the clock and undo the decisions of the past.

Remembering that, of course, what was considered acceptable in the past may not be considered acceptable today.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, --- a thought provoking questing. (Proverb: Home is where the heart is!)

Where do the "Jewish Zionist Fanatics" go h-o-m-e to?

Good question. My grandparents are from England, Scotland, and Germany. If I had to go "back home" where would that be?

(COMMENT)

The question was answered by the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920) --- nearly a century ago.

Whereas recognition has thereby been given
to the historical connexion of the Jewish people
with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country;​

It is obvious --- the leaders at the opening of the 20th Century thought that the culture and protections should extend back to the beginning.

Most Respectfully,
R

The beginning? Really? In that case you better start packing, sell up and get the next plane to wherever your ancestors came from. You're living on land originally owned by the Adena people, or if they're extinct, any Algonquian native Americans.

(COMMENT)

Given the fact that most leadership that made determinations in the early decades of the 20th Century (in the immediate shadow of the Great World War) based on the development of international logic and predicated on philosophical persuasions driven by the lessons learned from the later part of the 19th Century [which included the era of the First - Second & Third Italian Wars of Independence, the Great Apache Wars, the Eighth Xhosa War, the Crimean War, the Third Seminole War, the Second Opium War, the French intervention in Mexico, the Comanche Campaign, the Ten Years' War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Second Anglo-Afghan War, the First & Second Franco-Dahomean Wars, Cuban War of Independence, the Spanish–American War, the Boxer Rebellion, etc, etc etc (just to name a very few)] --- and the political leadership had somewhat of a different view then, on the rights of the indigenous population, the colonial policies abroad, and the administration of territory under occupation. The international relations between both hostile and friendly states had a much different meaning then --- than they have today. Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- Stare Decisis [meaning --- Let the decision stand]. We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.

At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today. Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference. The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (sui generis regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- Stare Decisis.

(OFF TOPIC)

Just as a point of order: (Since you mentioned it!)

The Native American inhabitants from the territory where I live came from one of two main groups: Iroquoian speakers (these included the Cayuga, Oneida, Erie, Onondaga, Seneca and Tuscarora), or (as you mentioned) the Algonquian speakers (these included the Pequot, Fox, Shawnee, Wampanoag, Delaware and Menominee). But they were not the first American Indians. Oddly enough, al-Jazeera America had an scientific article on the subject. Before the Iroquoian and Algonquian speakers, there were the Clovis - a culture that inhabited parts of the Northeast America over ten thousand years ago (13,000 years ago to about 12,600 years ago).

"Genome sequencing in November 2013 on the arm bone of a three-year-old Siberian boy known as the "Mal'ta Boy" — the world's oldest known genome — showed that Native Americans share up to 35 percent of their DNA with people in Eurasia, the Middle East and Europe."​

One can carry this "indigenous population theme" as far back as they wish. But while interesting, in the practical sense, the expansion and conquest of territory has been a historical process throughout human history. Just because today, culturally and sociologically speaking we may question it, doesn't change the fact that it happened. Hell, there may be an Arab Palestinian who was related to a Clovis Tribal member that once own my property --- taken in conquest. That doesn't alter the fact that I own it today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RandomVariable]

Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:

Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews

An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.​

 

[Challenger]

Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:

Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews

An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.​

Fascinating. Egypt has closed the border created a buffer zone to keep Gaza sealed off, the Egyptian navy has joined in the favourite pastime of the Israeli navy and shoots up Palestinian fishing boats and then is surprised that it's own citzens, not Gazans, are so hacked off with this new dictatorship that they join al-Quaeda and/or IS. I wonder if the Gazans sat on sofa's watching the fireworks across the border, "nothing to do with us!" although I suspect the Zionists and Egyptian supporters od al-Sissy will try to find an excuse to bomb Gaza a bit more.

 

[Challenger]

Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- Stare Decisis [meaning --- Let the decision stand]. We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.

At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today. Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference. The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (sui generis regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- Stare Decisis.

Legalese nonsense.
You kow as well as I do "Stare Decisis" does not apply to "higher courts." "National governments" can make declarations until they're blue in the face, then and now, but Supra-national bodies, like the U.N. are not bound to accept them and they can be overruled. San Remo, for example, could be rendered null and void by a Security Council Resolution, and even a General Assemby Resolution, although not necessarily binding, would demonstrate "supra-national" opinion on a subject, which in turn can become Customary International Law. All that is needed is the political will to act.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, RandomVariable, et al,

The actions of the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis are relative to their goals and objectives. The potential menu of retaliation are a measure of either conviction or resolve.

Ya, well, hey, don't let me interrupt these lovely chats everyone is having but about that Egyptian buffer zone mentioned in the OP. This in today's news regarding that buffer zone area:

Simultaneous attacks in Egypt s Sinai kill 27 - Israel News Ynetnews

An Islamic State affiliate previously known as Ansar Beit al-Maqdis claimed the attack, the group has launched several attacks against the police and the army in Sinai in recent years, particularly following the military overthrow of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi in 2013.

But the wide-ranging attacks late Thursday, which struck the Northern Sinai provincial capital el-Arish, the nearby town of Sheik Zuwayid and the town of Rafah bordering Gaza, indicate a previously unseen level of coordination.

The officials said Thursday's attacks included at least one car bomb set off outside a military base and mortar rounds fired at a hotel, a police club and more than a dozen checkpoints. At least 36 people were wounded in the attack, according to medical officials, who also confirmed the death toll.​

Fascinating. Egypt has closed the border created a buffer zone to keep Gaza sealed off, the Egyptian navy has joined in the favourite pastime of the Israeli navy and shoots up Palestinian fishing boats and then is surprised that it's own citzens, not Gazans, are so hacked off with this new dictatorship that they join al-Quaeda and/or IS. I wonder if the Gazans sat on sofa's watching the fireworks across the border, "nothing to do with us!" although I suspect the Zionists and Egyptian supporters od al-Sissy will try to find an excuse to bomb Gaza a bit more.

(COMMENT)

The situation here is more a complex question of moral relativism, political dilemma and consequence action than anything else. It is extremely hard to judge that reasoning behind the hostile action and jihadist approach without clearly understanding the process by which the Ansar Beit al-Maqdis came to the decision to take such a deadly and provocative action.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, to be honest, I wasn't using the latin term as it is commonly applied in the legal profession, but rather as it was originally used in the philosophical context.

Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- Stare Decisis [meaning --- Let the decision stand]. We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.

At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today. Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference. The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (sui generis regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- Stare Decisis.

Legalese nonsense.
You kow as well as I do "Stare Decisis" does not apply to "higher courts." "National governments" can make declarations until they're blue in the face, then and now, but Supra-national bodies, like the U.N. are not bound to accept them and they can be overruled. San Remo, for example, could be rendered null and void by a Security Council Resolution, and even a General Assemby Resolution, although not necessarily binding, would demonstrate "supra-national" opinion on a subject, which in turn can become Customary International Law. All that is needed is the political will to act.

Whatever we may judge today on the decisions made in the past under a completely different set of principles, the reality of it is: they can not be undone --- Stare Decisis [meaning --- Let the decision stand]. We cannot retroactively apply the 21st Century conventions to replay the 19th and 20th Century decisions of the past.

At the end of WWI, the decisions were made that directly lead to the conditions which exist today. Whether they were right or wrong by todays standards makes not difference. The decision was to extend the special consideration to the Jewish Culture (sui generis regiment) for the protection and preservation of its heritage under the philosophy and principles of the day --- Stare Decisis.

Legalese nonsense.
You kow as well as I do "Stare Decisis" does not apply to "higher courts." "National governments" can make declarations until they're blue in the face, then and now, but Supra-national bodies, like the U.N. are not bound to accept them and they can be overruled. San Remo, for example, could be rendered null and void by a Security Council Resolution, and even a General Assemby Resolution, although not necessarily binding, would demonstrate "supra-national" opinion on a subject, which in turn can become Customary International Law. All that is needed is the political will to act.

(COMMENT)

True, it is that higher court that uses the decision "Stare Decisis" in its review. (Although I was using the term in the general sense and context of the pure meaning of letting a previous decision stand.)

A Security Council Resolution are special in the sense that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". (Chapter V - Article 25 - UN Charter) This is often what is meant when a Resolution is labeled as "binding" [(of an agreement or promise) involving an obligation that cannot be broken]. However, enforcement of a binding resolution is again bounded by the requirement to maximize the effort to maintain peace and security; particularly on matters which involve territorial boundaries.

Political will to act is an entirely different matter. While there are some cases in which ex post facto law (retroactively changing the legal consequences) can be applied, it is unlikely that in the case of territorial disputes that the International Body will act in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are endangered. Nor is it likely that a majority of the membership will permit the enactment of a binding resolution that could be turned upon themselves; especially in cases in which self-defense, self-determination, and sovereignty are at issue. No country is going to grant a UN Body the power to change (as an example) its international boundaries based on historical conjecture.

We haven't addressed an issue, in the recent discussion segment, that involves International Customary Law; at least I don't think we have.

Most Respectfully,
R