All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You bring this up periodically. Because you cannot tell the difference between the boundaries established by the Allied Powers, to which the Mandate applied, and the international boundaries established by treaty..

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

(COMMENT)

There is nothing I can do for you. You believe what you want to believe just to keep your vision alive. But that does not make it true.

IF the Arab Palestinian believe that there is a boundary dispute and facts to be made, THEN they need to activate the procedures under the Rule of Law (RoL).

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

It seems that the Arab Palestinians are satisfied, and have been satisfied, with the boundary situation. They are not going to use the RoL to meet their political objectives. As they have said: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase." Or put another way: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There is no intent on the part of the Palestinians to use the Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Because you cannot tell the difference between the boundaries established by the Allied Powers, to which the Mandate applied, and the international boundaries established by treaty..

I use the international boundaries that were referenced in the Armistice Agreements. Those are the same international boundaries that were defined by post war treaties.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You bring this up periodically. Because you cannot tell the difference between the boundaries established by the Allied Powers, to which the Mandate applied, and the international boundaries established by treaty..

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

(COMMENT)

There is nothing I can do for you. You believe what you want to believe just to keep your vision alive. But that does not make it true.

IF the Arab Palestinian believe that there is a boundary dispute and facts to be made, THEN they need to activate the procedures under the Rule of Law (RoL).

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

It seems that the Arab Palestinians are satisfied, and have been satisfied, with the boundary situation. They are not going to use the RoL to meet their political objectives. As they have said: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase." Or put another way: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There is no intent on the part of the Palestinians to use the Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems that the Arab Palestinians are satisfied, and have been satisfied, with the boundary situation. They are not going to use the RoL to meet their political objectives.

That is from Palestine's so called leadership. The people have a different opinion.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you are mistaken... The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are valid IF and only IF the premises are all true, There is nothing UNTRUE in the "Step Preparatory to Independent."

Everything about the completion of the "Step Preparatory to Independent" and the subsequent creation of the Jewish State of Israel was entirely legal.

Only if Resolution 181 was valid. It was not.

(COMMENT)

Who are you to declare General Assembly Resolution A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947 as invalid, unsound or improper in any fashion? Not only is it mentioned in the Palestinian Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988, but it is also mentioned General Assembly Resolution A/RES/67/19 Status of Palestine in the United Nations which decided to Palestine non-member observer State status in the
United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). And the PLO has said that:

Historic Palestine is a small country in size. Since the mid-twentieth century, it has been gradually wiped off the map. This began on 29 November 1947, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted an unprecedented and neverrepeated resolution (Resolution 181 (II)) to partition Palestine into two states; Palestine and Israel. To date, Palestinians continue to be denied their basic right to self-determination and the establishment of their own State. In fact, the 22% of historic Palestine the world agrees must be the territory of the State of Palestine is shrinking by the day.

It is what it is... It was, by many accounts, adopted. And the PLO, while they might not agree with it, don't dispute its existance. AND the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated (which I guess is Area "A"); so says the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference. And the status of the PLO has not really changed.

Most Respectfully,
R

Some people still hawk resolution 181 like it means something. The question that you have been ducking for years is: What parts of resolution 181 were implemented?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This question is like the juvenile delinquent that that complains, after he strikes someone, and get hit hard in return.

Neither policy nor violence should be a driver towards peace. The default political position is "peace." Peace should be the natural static condition for any modern state to gravitate towards.

Then what should the Palestinians do about the constant violence by Israel?

(COMMENT)

What you call violence is actually the implementation of Article 43 (Hague Regulation; power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety) and the application of Article 68 (GCIV; rendering penalties to those that intended to do harm the Occupying Power).

Sometimes it is necessary to remember that Arab Palestinians are generally NOT VICTIMS but thay are perpetrators of behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something the innocent.

View attachment 230700

This is very applicable in that it is the duty of the Arab Palestinian to refrain from criminal acts directed against the State of Israel that are intended and calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of the Israels to achieve their political ends.

It is both legally and morally wrong (as an example) to use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. That would include rockets, incendiary kites, suiicide bombers, and those Arab Palestinians that plant bombs.

Most Respectfully,
R

This is very applicable in that it is the duty of the Arab Palestinian to refrain from criminal acts directed against the State of Israel

It is Israel that commits criminal acts against the Palestinians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There was no established right at stake.

It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.

Rights are non negotiable.

(COMMENT)

We were speaking in the context under the agreement that the Arab Palestinians agreed that Israel had Area C (full Israeli civil and security control). And under that agreed upon control, they colored within the lines.

Most Respectfully,
R

It doesn't matter. Rights are non negotiable.

 

[rylah]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You bring this up periodically. Because you cannot tell the difference between the boundaries established by the Allied Powers, to which the Mandate applied, and the international boundaries established by treaty..

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

(COMMENT)

There is nothing I can do for you. You believe what you want to believe just to keep your vision alive. But that does not make it true.

IF the Arab Palestinian believe that there is a boundary dispute and facts to be made, THEN they need to activate the procedures under the Rule of Law (RoL).

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.

It seems that the Arab Palestinians are satisfied, and have been satisfied, with the boundary situation. They are not going to use the RoL to meet their political objectives. As they have said: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase." Or put another way: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." There is no intent on the part of the Palestinians to use the Rule of Law.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems that the Arab Palestinians are satisfied, and have been satisfied, with the boundary situation. They are not going to use the RoL to meet their political objectives.

That is from Palestine's so called leadership. The people have a different opinion.

 

[Shusha]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

 

[Shusha]

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

Seriously? You can't even maintain the integrity of your own arguments. According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries. By definition (yours), Israel can not violate Palestine's international boundaries.

The conflict is one of two competing peoples to self-determination within the same territory. The solution, evidenced everywhere in the world, is to divide the territory into two separate territories of self-determination. Why are the Arab Palestinians the only people on the planet to whom those standards do not apply?

According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries.

It does. That is the conflict in a nutshell. It is not complicated.

And in every other conflict of this sort, the territory is divided between the peoples, with each getting a portion for their own self-determination. Why should Arab Palestinians get special treatment?

 

[P F Tinmore]

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

Seriously? You can't even maintain the integrity of your own arguments. According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries. By definition (yours), Israel can not violate Palestine's international boundaries.

The conflict is one of two competing peoples to self-determination within the same territory. The solution, evidenced everywhere in the world, is to divide the territory into two separate territories of self-determination. Why are the Arab Palestinians the only people on the planet to whom those standards do not apply?

According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries.

It does. That is the conflict in a nutshell. It is not complicated.

And in every other conflict of this sort, the territory is divided between the peoples, with each getting a portion for their own self-determination. Why should Arab Palestinians get special treatment?

Why should the Palestinians give half of their country to colonial settlers?

 

[Mindful]

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

Seriously? You can't even maintain the integrity of your own arguments. According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries. By definition (yours), Israel can not violate Palestine's international boundaries.

The conflict is one of two competing peoples to self-determination within the same territory. The solution, evidenced everywhere in the world, is to divide the territory into two separate territories of self-determination. Why are the Arab Palestinians the only people on the planet to whom those standards do not apply?

According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries.

It does. That is the conflict in a nutshell. It is not complicated.

And in every other conflict of this sort, the territory is divided between the peoples, with each getting a portion for their own self-determination. Why should Arab Palestinians get special treatment?

Why should the Palestinians give half of their country to colonial settlers?

You're talking from a delusionary false premise all the time.

 

[rylah]

\

What about Israel's violations against Palestine's international boundaries?

Seriously? You can't even maintain the integrity of your own arguments. According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries. By definition (yours), Israel can not violate Palestine's international boundaries.

The conflict is one of two competing peoples to self-determination within the same territory. The solution, evidenced everywhere in the world, is to divide the territory into two separate territories of self-determination. Why are the Arab Palestinians the only people on the planet to whom those standards do not apply?

According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries.

It does. That is the conflict in a nutshell. It is not complicated.

And in every other conflict of this sort, the territory is divided between the peoples, with each getting a portion for their own self-determination. Why should Arab Palestinians get special treatment?

Why should the Palestinians give half of their country to colonial settlers?

You're talking from a delusionary false premise all the time.

End of story.
You know they're loosing when instead of arguments, all effort goes into insisting that Jews don't have rights as everyone else.

Q. Why do Arabs expect to have everything, after already taking 78% of land intended for Jewish self determination?

 

[Mindful]

\

Seriously? You can't even maintain the integrity of your own arguments. According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries. By definition (yours), Israel can not violate Palestine's international boundaries.

The conflict is one of two competing peoples to self-determination within the same territory. The solution, evidenced everywhere in the world, is to divide the territory into two separate territories of self-determination. Why are the Arab Palestinians the only people on the planet to whom those standards do not apply?

According to your own arguments, Israel exists within "Palestine's" boundaries.

It does. That is the conflict in a nutshell. It is not complicated.

And in every other conflict of this sort, the territory is divided between the peoples, with each getting a portion for their own self-determination. Why should Arab Palestinians get special treatment?

Why should the Palestinians give half of their country to colonial settlers?

You're talking from a delusionary false premise all the time.

The correct question would be :

Q. Why do Arabs expect to have everything, after already taking 78% of land intended for Jewish self determination?

He doesn't see it that way.

Though it isn't a 'way'. It's as it is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

 

[Mindful]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

You can't argue historical facts and events, which you seem hell bent on distorting, come what may.

Sold down the line.

The Morality of Jewish Sovereignty in the Land of Israel - Part Two - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

 

[rylah]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

Incorrect.
The plight of the native Jews in the middle east, specifically Syria-Palestine and Morocco started Zionism as a natural response to Arab pogroms.

Theodor Hertzl was a late arrival in the movement.

 

[USAF 2023]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

You can't argue historical facts and events, which you seem hell bent on distorting, come what may.

Sold down the line.

The Morality of Jewish Sovereignty in the Land of Israel - Part Two - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

Every argument he uses states the Jewish State should not exist. He refers to the Armistice lines which were never respected or recognized by the Arabs in the first place.

 

[Hollie]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

A recent analysis by Pinhas Inbari reviewed the history of Palestine (derived from the Roman term Palaestina, applied in 135 CE as a punishment to a Jewish revolt). Most notably, he examines the origin traditions of Palestinian tribes, which continue even today to see themselves as immigrants from other countries. Inbari's review, along with many additional sources of information he did not address, demonstrates that modern Palestinians are, in fact, derived from two primary streams: converts from indigenous pre-modern Jews and Christians who submitted to Islam, and Arab tribes originating across the Middle East who migrated to the Southern Levant between late antiquity and the 1940s. The best documented episodes were the Islamic conquests of the 7th century and its aftermath, and the periods of the late Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate.

The family lineage of Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who has proclaimed himself a "proud son of the Canaanites," more accurately traces to the Huwaitat tribe, located in Arabia.

Even notable examples like Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who ludicrously claimed that "I am the proud son of the Canaanites who were there 5,500 years before Joshua bin Nun burned down the town of Jericho," traces his real family lineage to the Huwaitat tribe, which migrated from Arabia to Jordan. The rare admission by Hamas minister Fathi Ḥammad that "half the Palestinians are Egyptians and the other half are Saudis" is more honest.

Echoing Inbari, it is not to be argued here that "there are no Palestinians" who thus do not deserve political rights, including self-rule and a state. To do so would be both logically and morally wrong. Palestinians have the right to define themselves as they see fit, and they must be negotiated with in good faith by Israelis. What Palestinians cannot claim, however, is that they are Palestine's indigenous population and the Jews are settler-colonialists.




Palestinian Settler-Colonialism

 

[Mindful]

Indeed, the natives and foreign colonial settlers inside Palestine.

Sure. Let's go with that. The trick is to determine which peoples are the natives and which are the foreign settlers.

You play a lovely double standard around that.

Zionism emerged as a national movement in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Its founder, Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), a Hungarian Jew, dreamt of establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine, a dream which was to be realised through colonisation and land acquisition. According to Zionist archives, the leadership of early Zionism believed that the native population of Palestine, as a result of this colonisation, would simply “fold their tents and slip away” or, if they resisted, they would be “spirited across the borders”.

“…colonisation can continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through…this is our policy towards the Arabs and to formulate it in any other way would be hypocrisy…The Jewish question can be solved either completely or it cannot be solved at all. We are in need of a territory where our people will constitute the overwhelming majority…and one must not be afraid of the word ‘segregation’ ”.

The Zionist Project - 1948​

The Zionists called the "Arabs" the natives and called themselves colonialists.

You can't argue historical facts and events, which you seem hell bent on distorting, come what may.

Sold down the line.

The Morality of Jewish Sovereignty in the Land of Israel - Part Two - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

Every argument he uses states the Jewish State should not exist. He refers to the Armistice lines which were never respected or recognized by the Arabs in the first place.

I don't get the extent of his zealotry. And others like him.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Media Slammed for ‘Innate Bias’ Towards Israel in Latest Gaza Flare-Up

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ Hatred of Jews continues in the land where Nazis have been allowed to move to, and fascist, communist and Iranian influence also abound. And it is not only Argentina ]

According to the publication Enlace Judio, Marcelo D’alessandro, the security secretary of the City of Buenos Aires, told a local radio station: “The Atlanta players had been invited, and and in the middle of the event the hosts started insulting them with anti-Semitic messages. They even hung a flag of Palestine.”

Iranian T-shirts were also observed in the crowd, according to the report. But there was even more. During the match, an entire section of All Boys fans sang a song of unquestionable anti-Semitic content: “Ahí viene el Albo por el callejón, matando judíos para hacer jabón” (“Here comes Albo down the alley, killing Jews to make soap.”

D’alessandro said the All Boys court was shut down indefinitely and announced he requested the team be sanctioned by the league to play all of its 2019 games without an audience.

(full article online)

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/med...killing-jews-to-make-soap-scandal/2018/11/25/