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

[Sixties Fan]

It is votes (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

It is Europe. Christian Europe. Why should they change now?

 

[Shusha]

It is votes (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

It is Europe. Christian Europe. Why should they change now?

Oh, I don't know. Rational is sexy?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

It is not a matter of being irrational.

It is voted (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because of Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

(COMMENT)

It is all about intimidation and coercion! Only some are irrational. Some are in anti-government fear of hostile anti-government activity.

​

In the face of these significant radical elements (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) and covert Islamic influences from other points of origin, these Western European Nations (most of which are in the European Union) are afraid (if not terrified) publicly demonstrates and strong objections to any governmental action or position that might be construed to be anti-Islamic - anti-Muslim. This is not to mention elements of propaganda that amounts to subversion and sedition.

You will notice that the countries of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have more than 7% Muslim representation within their respective national populations. All together that is more than 10 Million Muslims in just Western Europe. If only 1% of 1% of the Muslim Population is radicalized (in just these three adjacent nations in the heart of central Western Europe); that would represent a condition and element of belligerency against just these three democratic republic governments in the sheer number 1000+ hostile activist in the region. The operational 911 Terrorist Team was ≈ 25 people strong. If we use the 911 Terrorist Teams as a yardstick, that would give us a terrorist threat numbering 40 autonomous operating teams should they be ignited and incited to form and act.

These three central Western European countries are frightened (although they would not admit it) that something will set the radical pro-Islamic movement in motion. These countries do not act anti-Israeli because they actually believe in the Islamic Movement, but because they are intimidated by the potential domestic violence (Islamic Extremism) that would gradually develop in the domestic heartland of central Western Europe.

The Bigger Picture

Don't think of it as these countries being mentally irrational. On the contrary, the short-term political position is that they should not face the problems today, that they can put-off until the next decade.

Even for most people within the Middle East and Israeli Conflict discussion, this on simple perspective is very hard and difficult to face and discuss in a realistic fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

It is not a matter of being irrational.

It is voted (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because of Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

(COMMENT)

It is all about intimidation and coercion! Only some are irrational. Some are in anti-government fear of hostile anti-government activity.

View attachment 271074 ​

In the face of these significant radical elements (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) and covert Islamic influences from other points of origin, these Western European Nations (most of which are in the European Union) are afraid (if not terrified) publicly demonstrates and strong objections to any governmental action or position that might be construed to be anti-Islamic - anti-Muslim. This is not to mention elements of propaganda that amounts to subversion and sedition.

View attachment 271058​

You will notice that the countries of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have more than 7% Muslim representation within their respective national populations. All together that is more than 10 Million Muslims in just Western Europe. If only 1% of 1% of the Muslim Population is radicalized (in just these three adjacent nations in the heart of central Western Europe); that would represent a condition and element of belligerency against just these three democratic republic governments in the sheer number 1000+ hostile activist in the region. The operational 911 Terrorist Team was ≈ 25 people strong. If we use the 911 Terrorist Teams as a yardstick, that would give us a terrorist threat numbering 40 autonomous operating teams should they be ignited and incited to form and act.

These three central Western European countries are frightened (although they would not admit it) that something will set the radical pro-Islamic movement in motion. These countries do not act anti-Israeli because they actually believe in the Islamic Movement, but because they are intimidated by the potential domestic violence (Islamic Extremism) that would gradually develop in the domestic heartland of central Western Europe.

The Bigger Picture
View attachment 271072​

Don't think of it as these countries being mentally irrational. On the contrary, the short-term political position is that they should not face the problems today, that they can put-off until the next decade.

Even for most people within the Middle East and Israeli Conflict discussion, this on simple perspective is very hard and difficult to face and discuss in a realistic fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

Ah. I hear you. Interesting perspective. I wonder if its actually a smart strategy, given the cracks in the Muslim world -- with some Muslim countries apparently at least considering coming aboard the modern world boat. Better to hold off for a few more years and only fighting half of the Muslim world rather than all of it?


Still sucks that it necessitates throwing Israel (Jews) under the bus, though.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

It is not a matter of being irrational.

It is voted (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because of Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

(COMMENT)

It is all about intimidation and coercion! Only some are irrational. Some are in anti-government fear of hostile anti-government activity.

View attachment 271074 ​

In the face of these significant radical elements (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) and covert Islamic influences from other points of origin, these Western European Nations (most of which are in the European Union) are afraid (if not terrified) publicly demonstrates and strong objections to any governmental action or position that might be construed to be anti-Islamic - anti-Muslim. This is not to mention elements of propaganda that amounts to subversion and sedition.

View attachment 271058​

You will notice that the countries of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have more than 7% Muslim representation within their respective national populations. All together that is more than 10 Million Muslims in just Western Europe. If only 1% of 1% of the Muslim Population is radicalized (in just these three adjacent nations in the heart of central Western Europe); that would represent a condition and element of belligerency against just these three democratic republic governments in the sheer number 1000+ hostile activist in the region. The operational 911 Terrorist Team was ≈ 25 people strong. If we use the 911 Terrorist Teams as a yardstick, that would give us a terrorist threat numbering 40 autonomous operating teams should they be ignited and incited to form and act.

These three central Western European countries are frightened (although they would not admit it) that something will set the radical pro-Islamic movement in motion. These countries do not act anti-Israeli because they actually believe in the Islamic Movement, but because they are intimidated by the potential domestic violence (Islamic Extremism) that would gradually develop in the domestic heartland of central Western Europe.

The Bigger Picture
View attachment 271072​

Don't think of it as these countries being mentally irrational. On the contrary, the short-term political position is that they should not face the problems today, that they can put-off until the next decade.

Even for most people within the Middle East and Israeli Conflict discussion, this on simple perspective is very hard and difficult to face and discuss in a realistic fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

It is not a matter of being irrational.

It is voted (resolutions and decisions) like these that demonstrate how irrational the UN is on the issue of Israel.

You know, I can understand all the Muslim countries being this irrational (because of Joooooooos), but Ireland? Norway? France? The Netherlands? Germany?

The US and Canada seem to be the only rational states at the UN.

(COMMENT)

It is all about intimidation and coercion! Only some are irrational. Some are in anti-government fear of hostile anti-government activity.

View attachment 271074 ​

In the face of these significant radical elements (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) and covert Islamic influences from other points of origin, these Western European Nations (most of which are in the European Union) are afraid (if not terrified) publicly demonstrates and strong objections to any governmental action or position that might be construed to be anti-Islamic - anti-Muslim. This is not to mention elements of propaganda that amounts to subversion and sedition.

View attachment 271058​

You will notice that the countries of France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have more than 7% Muslim representation within their respective national populations. All together that is more than 10 Million Muslims in just Western Europe. If only 1% of 1% of the Muslim Population is radicalized (in just these three adjacent nations in the heart of central Western Europe); that would represent a condition and element of belligerency against just these three democratic republic governments in the sheer number 1000+ hostile activist in the region. The operational 911 Terrorist Team was ≈ 25 people strong. If we use the 911 Terrorist Teams as a yardstick, that would give us a terrorist threat numbering 40 autonomous operating teams should they be ignited and incited to form and act.

These three central Western European countries are frightened (although they would not admit it) that something will set the radical pro-Islamic movement in motion. These countries do not act anti-Israeli because they actually believe in the Islamic Movement, but because they are intimidated by the potential domestic violence (Islamic Extremism) that would gradually develop in the domestic heartland of central Western Europe.

The Bigger Picture
View attachment 271072​

Don't think of it as these countries being mentally irrational. On the contrary, the short-term political position is that they should not face the problems today, that they can put-off until the next decade.

Even for most people within the Middle East and Israeli Conflict discussion, this on simple perspective is very hard and difficult to face and discuss in a realistic fashion.

Most Respectfully,
R

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

“.... Because I say so”.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

“Be wary around your enemy once, and your friend a thousand times.
A double-crossing friend knows more about what harms you.”
..........................................................................(Ancient Proverb)​

Better to hold off for a few more years and only fighting half of the Muslim world rather than all of it?

Still sucks that it necessitates throwing Israel (Jews) under the bus, though.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, there are several factors that affect this line of thought; remembering though there is no one single line of thought that applies to the current political climate.

I'm not sure that it is so much about throwing the Israelis under the bus. There are domestic concerns in the Arab World that affect where the Arab Leadership focus. Sometimes, to keep the political activist from gaining ground and support, it is necessary to give the masses something to chew on.

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

(COMMENT)

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

In general, migration is caused by the search for a better life and to fulfill the dreams for the future. It has nothing to do with Foreign Policy.

Immigration is, on the other hand, a matter of Domestic Policy (not Foreign Policy). Those that migrate have little practical understanding of immigration matters.​

I can rightly say I am from Germany because my grandfather (mother's side) was born there and immigrated after WWI. My grandmother was Pennsylvania Dutch. I have no clue when they came here. I cannot make that same claim about France or Italy. Even if I were to "return" that would not give me any exclusive rights. I would just be like everyone else.

(COMMENT)

If you were born in America, you are an American. There is no "right of return" concept that is applicable. In contemporary times, immigration is most effected by domestic unemployment. The general population does not concern themselves with immigration when both the American Citizen and the Immigrant have low unemployment/under-employment numbers. It is only when the opportunities and expectation of either become significant.

The "right of return" is another political matter that is driven by these same factors. If there was no difference in the "employment numbers" and potential for "future opportunities" between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, then that condition would stabilize security in the region.

The "right of return" is no more valid for 98% of the Arab Palestinian population then it is for you or me. We were never residents of Israel, and neither have 98% of the Arab Palestinians. For the "right of return" to be applicable, your applicant would have to have lived in Israel. (You cannot return to a place that you have never been in the first place.)

No enforcement of International Law applies to immigration policy. Immigration is a "domestic" matter.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

“Be wary around your enemy once, and your friend a thousand times.
A double-crossing friend knows more about what harms you.”
..........................................................................(Ancient Proverb)​

Better to hold off for a few more years and only fighting half of the Muslim world rather than all of it?

Still sucks that it necessitates throwing Israel (Jews) under the bus, though.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, there are several factors that affect this line of thought; remembering though there is no one single line of thought that applies to the current political climate.

I'm not sure that it is so much about throwing the Israelis under the bus. There are domestic concerns in the Arab World that affect where the Arab Leadership focus. Sometimes, to keep the political activist from gaining ground and support, it is necessary to give the masses something to chew on.

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

(COMMENT)

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

In general, migration is caused by the search for a better life and to fulfill the dreams for the future. It has nothing to do with Foreign Policy.

Immigration is, on the other hand, a matter of Domestic Policy (not Foreign Policy). Those that migrate have little practical understanding of immigration matters.​

I can rightly say I am from Germany because my grandfather (mother's side) was born there and immigrated after WWI. My grandmother was Pennsylvania Dutch. I have no clue when they came here. I cannot make that same claim about France or Italy. Even if I were to "return" that would not give me any exclusive rights. I would just be like everyone else.

(COMMENT)

If you were born in America, you are an American. There is no "right of return" concept that is applicable. In contemporary times, immigration is most effected by domestic unemployment. The general population does not concern themselves with immigration when both the American Citizen and the Immigrant have low unemployment/under-employment numbers. It is only when the opportunities and expectation of either become significant.

The "right of return" is another political matter that is driven by these same factors. If there was no difference in the "employment numbers" and potential for "future opportunities" between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, then that condition would stabilize security in the region.

The "right of return" is no more valid for 98% of the Arab Palestinian population then it is for you or me. We were never residents of Israel, and neither have 98% of the Arab Palestinians. For the "right of return" to be applicable, your applicant would have to have lived in Israel. (You cannot return to a place that you have never been in the first place.)

No enforcement of International Law applies to immigration policy. Immigration is a "domestic" matter.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The return of refugees has nothing to do with immigration.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

“Be wary around your enemy once, and your friend a thousand times.
A double-crossing friend knows more about what harms you.”
..........................................................................(Ancient Proverb)​

Better to hold off for a few more years and only fighting half of the Muslim world rather than all of it?

Still sucks that it necessitates throwing Israel (Jews) under the bus, though.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, there are several factors that affect this line of thought; remembering though there is no one single line of thought that applies to the current political climate.

I'm not sure that it is so much about throwing the Israelis under the bus. There are domestic concerns in the Arab World that affect where the Arab Leadership focus. Sometimes, to keep the political activist from gaining ground and support, it is necessary to give the masses something to chew on.

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

(COMMENT)

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

In general, migration is caused by the search for a better life and to fulfill the dreams for the future. It has nothing to do with Foreign Policy.

Immigration is, on the other hand, a matter of Domestic Policy (not Foreign Policy). Those that migrate have little practical understanding of immigration matters.​

I can rightly say I am from Germany because my grandfather (mother's side) was born there and immigrated after WWI. My grandmother was Pennsylvania Dutch. I have no clue when they came here. I cannot make that same claim about France or Italy. Even if I were to "return" that would not give me any exclusive rights. I would just be like everyone else.

(COMMENT)

If you were born in America, you are an American. There is no "right of return" concept that is applicable. In contemporary times, immigration is most effected by domestic unemployment. The general population does not concern themselves with immigration when both the American Citizen and the Immigrant have low unemployment/under-employment numbers. It is only when the opportunities and expectation of either become significant.

The "right of return" is another political matter that is driven by these same factors. If there was no difference in the "employment numbers" and potential for "future opportunities" between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, then that condition would stabilize security in the region.

The "right of return" is no more valid for 98% of the Arab Palestinian population then it is for you or me. We were never residents of Israel, and neither have 98% of the Arab Palestinians. For the "right of return" to be applicable, your applicant would have to have lived in Israel. (You cannot return to a place that you have never been in the first place.)

No enforcement of International Law applies to immigration policy. Immigration is a "domestic" matter.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

t is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

Nonsense.

Most migrants are from countries we have physically attacked or have dictators that are installed/propped up by the US.

 

[Hollie]

RE: All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss
⁜→ Shusha, et al,

“Be wary around your enemy once, and your friend a thousand times.
A double-crossing friend knows more about what harms you.”
..........................................................................(Ancient Proverb)​

Better to hold off for a few more years and only fighting half of the Muslim world rather than all of it?

Still sucks that it necessitates throwing Israel (Jews) under the bus, though.

(COMMENT)

Yeah, there are several factors that affect this line of thought; remembering though there is no one single line of thought that applies to the current political climate.

I'm not sure that it is so much about throwing the Israelis under the bus. There are domestic concerns in the Arab World that affect where the Arab Leadership focus. Sometimes, to keep the political activist from gaining ground and support, it is necessary to give the masses something to chew on.

The biggest cause of Muslim migration/immigration/refugees is US foreign policy.

(COMMENT)

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

In general, migration is caused by the search for a better life and to fulfill the dreams for the future. It has nothing to do with Foreign Policy.

Immigration is, on the other hand, a matter of Domestic Policy (not Foreign Policy). Those that migrate have little practical understanding of immigration matters.​

I can rightly say I am from Germany because my grandfather (mother's side) was born there and immigrated after WWI. My grandmother was Pennsylvania Dutch. I have no clue when they came here. I cannot make that same claim about France or Italy. Even if I were to "return" that would not give me any exclusive rights. I would just be like everyone else.

(COMMENT)

If you were born in America, you are an American. There is no "right of return" concept that is applicable. In contemporary times, immigration is most effected by domestic unemployment. The general population does not concern themselves with immigration when both the American Citizen and the Immigrant have low unemployment/under-employment numbers. It is only when the opportunities and expectation of either become significant.

The "right of return" is another political matter that is driven by these same factors. If there was no difference in the "employment numbers" and potential for "future opportunities" between the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians, then that condition would stabilize security in the region.

The "right of return" is no more valid for 98% of the Arab Palestinian population then it is for you or me. We were never residents of Israel, and neither have 98% of the Arab Palestinians. For the "right of return" to be applicable, your applicant would have to have lived in Israel. (You cannot return to a place that you have never been in the first place.)

No enforcement of International Law applies to immigration policy. Immigration is a "domestic" matter.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter, but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

The return of refugees has nothing to do with immigration.

You're a bit befuddled regarding ths term "refugee".

 

[RoccoR]

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

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

Nonsense.

Most migrants are from countries we have physically attacked or have dictators that are installed/propped up by the US.

(COMMENT)

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity. By the time you research and publish it, the Policy has changed. On this matter, US Foreign Policy reacts to change. It makes recommendations. It attempts to put forth Proposals. But as an Official Policy, there is none until a specific event occurs to which the US must react.

The return of refugees has nothing to do with immigration.

(UNHCR REFERENCE)

You are just a bit blind. There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return." The crossing of the borders into Israel is a matter for domestic law. This is no different than any of the 22 Nations in the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It is easy to blame American Foreign Policy, especially when there really isn't a foreign policy to speak of in these matters.

Nonsense.

Most migrants are from countries we have physically attacked or have dictators that are installed/propped up by the US.

(COMMENT)

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity. By the time you research and publish it, the Policy has changed. On this matter, US Foreign Policy reacts to change. It makes recommendations. It attempts to put forth Proposals. But as an Official Policy, there is none until a specific event occurs to which the US must react.

The return of refugees has nothing to do with immigration.

(UNHCR REFERENCE)

You are just a bit blind. There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return." The crossing of the borders into Israel is a matter for domestic law. This is no different than any of the 22 Nations in the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity.

Yes there is. Israel gets to do what it wants.

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Yes, this is an unsubstantiated opinion you have.

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity.

Yes there is. Israel gets to do what it wants.

(COMMENT)

The absence of an objection is not a policy.

The support of Israeli Article 51 Self-Defense is an obligation under the Charter, not a foreign policy.

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

(COMMENT)

That is not what the law says. Read it carefully:

Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

Article 13 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.​

Even if you were 70+ years old and a person that was originally born in what is now known as the State of Israel, does not enjoy the consideration given under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

This Convention relating to the Status of Refugees shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.​

Contemporary law makes allowance for war: Nothing shall prevent a State, in time of war or other grave and exceptional circumstances, from taking provisionally measures which it considers to be essential to the national security in the case of a particular person, pending a determination by the State that that person is, in fact, a refugee and that the continuance of such measures is necessary in his case in the interests of national security.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Yes, this is an unsubstantiated opinion you have.

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity.

Yes there is. Israel gets to do what it wants.

(COMMENT)

The absence of an objection is not a policy.

The support of Israeli Article 51 Self-Defense is an obligation under the Charter, not a foreign policy.

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

(COMMENT)

That is not what the law says. Read it carefully:

Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

Article 13 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.​

Even if you were 70+ years old and a person that was originally born in what is now known as the State of Israel, does not enjoy the consideration given under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

This Convention relating to the Status of Refugees shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.​

Contemporary law makes allowance for war: Nothing shall prevent a State, in time of war or other grave and exceptional circumstances, from taking provisionally measures which it considers to be essential to the national security in the case of a particular person, pending a determination by the State that that person is, in fact, a refugee and that the continuance of such measures is necessary in his case in the interests of national security.

Most Respectfully,
R

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Someone's own country is a physical not a political place. The name or government may change but it is still his country.

 

[MJB12741]

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

Yes, this is an unsubstantiated opinion you have.

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity.

Yes there is. Israel gets to do what it wants.

(COMMENT)

The absence of an objection is not a policy.

The support of Israeli Article 51 Self-Defense is an obligation under the Charter, not a foreign policy.

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

(COMMENT)

That is not what the law says. Read it carefully:

Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

Article 13 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.​

Even if you were 70+ years old and a person that was originally born in what is now known as the State of Israel, does not enjoy the consideration given under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

This Convention relating to the Status of Refugees shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.​

Contemporary law makes allowance for war: Nothing shall prevent a State, in time of war or other grave and exceptional circumstances, from taking provisionally measures which it considers to be essential to the national security in the case of a particular person, pending a determination by the State that that person is, in fact, a refugee and that the continuance of such measures is necessary in his case in the interests of national security.

Most Respectfully,
R

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Someone's own country is a physical not a political place. The name or government may change but it is still his country.

So true. Judea, Samaria, Israel. Still their country long before any Muslim Palestinians to invade & occupy it.

 

[Hollie]

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

Yes, this is an unsubstantiated opinion you have.

When I say that the US does not have an Official Policy on the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, it means that there is no continuity.

Yes there is. Israel gets to do what it wants.

(COMMENT)

The absence of an objection is not a policy.

The support of Israeli Article 51 Self-Defense is an obligation under the Charter, not a foreign policy.

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

(COMMENT)

That is not what the law says. Read it carefully:

Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
​

Article 13 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) •
entry into force 23 March 1976

An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.​

Even if you were 70+ years old and a person that was originally born in what is now known as the State of Israel, does not enjoy the consideration given under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

This Convention relating to the Status of Refugees shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.​

Contemporary law makes allowance for war: Nothing shall prevent a State, in time of war or other grave and exceptional circumstances, from taking provisionally measures which it considers to be essential to the national security in the case of a particular person, pending a determination by the State that that person is, in fact, a refugee and that the continuance of such measures is necessary in his case in the interests of national security.

Most Respectfully,
R

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Someone's own country is a physical not a political place. The name or government may change but it is still his country.

This applies to invented countries, such as your invented "country of Pally'land?

 

[Shusha]

There is no "LAW" that is relative to the "right of return."

Rocco is 100% correct here, there is no "LAW" which expresses a positive "right of return".

There are several laws which expressly protect the right of states to handle their own domestic affairs, including nationality laws, and immigration of non-nationals.

There are also agreements which define the term "refugee" and express several "solutions" for refugees (with the implication that there is no one absolute right for refugees) and agreements for the prevention of statelessness (with the implication that there is a default position with respect to acquiring nationality -- and it is NOT country of ancestral origin).

 

[Shusha]

Yes there is. People belong to a territory. The name and to government may change but the territory is the same.

There is absolutely no basis for this. I honestly don't even know how you make this stuff up. The entire global system is a system of citizenship and nationality of state actors. People become nationals of the state which grants nationality to them, according to their own domestic laws. There is absolutely no right to hold a nationality based on a geographical location.

 

[Shusha]

Someone's own country is a physical not a political place. The name or government may change but it is still his country.

No, its not. Someone's "own country" is the state in which he holds nationality.

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is (and I'm the one that told you about it) the right citation.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Someone's own country is a physical not a political place. The name or government may change but it is still his country.

(COMMENT)

There are two problems with the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) using this citation.

◈ Article 12(4) comes from the Article 12 • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) which did not go into effect until after 23 March 1976. That is a decade after the Six-Day Way June 1967. These kinds of laws are not retroactive. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is 21st Century Law.

Article 11 • Jurisdiction ratione temporis

1. The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute.

2. If a State becomes a Party to this Statute after its entry into force, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute for that State, unless that State has made a declaration under article 12, paragraph 3.​

◈ The current standoff is that the Israelis did not apply the prohibition in an "arbitrary" fashion. The HoAPpresent a threat to the national security of Israel and the citizenry. The Arab Palestinians have not yet negotiated the settlements of disputes as agreed upon in the Oslo Accords.

Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. (1968).


Most Respectfully,
R​