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

[RoccoR]

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

WHILE Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) stipulates that "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference," and that freedom of expression is permissible; the CCPR is not so rigid or permissive as to allow an interpretation and implementation of “hate speech.”

Should they close down accounts over an opinion?

(COMMENT)

Article 20 of the ICCPR holds that "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law." Nor does the CCPR or such speech that it rises to the level of incitement to violence. The CCPR provides that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

The CCPR protects the rights of the general population from the misuse of those freedoms when it jeopardizes the safety and security of the general public.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

WHILE Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) stipulates that "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference," and that freedom of expression is permissible. However, the CCPR is not so rigid or permission as to allow an interpretation and implementation such that “hate speech.”

Should they close down accounts over an opinion?

(COMMENT)

Article 20 of the ICCPR holds that "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law." Nor does the CCPR or such speech that it rises to the level of incitement to violence. The CCPR provides that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

 

[RoccoR]

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

I don't understand the association you are making here.

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

(COMMENT)

The right to self-defense has to do with the actual or threatened physical warm (direct or indirect).

Article 19 Rights has to do with the Right of Expression and Opinion.

The Rights to Speech, Expressions, and Opinions (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) are not permitted to incite such action as to place the regional security, or public safety and order in peril. These are Article 20 protections against misuse and abuse.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

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

WHILE Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) stipulates that "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference," and that freedom of expression is permissible. However, the CCPR is not so rigid or permission as to allow an interpretation and implementation such that “hate speech.”

Should they close down accounts over an opinion?

(COMMENT)

Article 20 of the ICCPR holds that "Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law." Nor does the CCPR or such speech that it rises to the level of incitement to violence. The CCPR provides that "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How does attacking Israel with rocket fire and Islamic terrorist riots at the Israeli security fence fit into Arab-Moslem self defense?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I don't understand the association you are making here.

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

(COMMENT)

The right to self-defense has to do with the actual or threatened physical warm (direct or indirect).

Article 19 Rights has to do with the Right of Expression and Opinion.

The Rights to Speech, Expressions, and Opinions (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) are not permitted to incite such action as to place the regional security, or public safety and order in peril. These are Article 20 protections against misuse and abuse.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK, now we are getting to the core of this part of the issue.

BLUF: The answer is → in any way that does not incite violence, or is likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinian claim that, in their words, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." And that they have the right to pursue this strategy which includes their right to incite violence and to speak out against, what they perceive as Israeli oppression. And in fact, that is the central justification that our friend "P F Tinmore" is using when he argues that the Arab Palestinians have the right to use any and all means, including the expression of resistance ("Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.") against Israeli violence.

IF both parties to the conflict, decided today to reset their perspective of the other, THEN what does the current law say? Clearly, the Israelis have to follow Article 43 of the Hague Regulation to:

"take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
------------------------------public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."​

(REFERENCES)

◈ Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

◈ Article 20

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

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

​

Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct​

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

(COMMENT)

As you can plainly see, the RoL in the fundamentals of peace throughout the territories was set over a half-century ago. But the "Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war" date back even farther; → to a time before the establishment of the Jewish State.

1.

Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

So, under the current laws, statements like following are a violation of the International Covenant and the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, now we are getting to the core of this part of the issue.

BLUF: The answer is → in any way that does not incite violence, or is likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinian claim that, in their words, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." And that they have the right to pursue this strategy which includes their right to incite violence and to speak out against, what they perceive as Israeli oppression. And in fact, that is the central justification that our friend "P F Tinmore" is using when he argues that the Arab Palestinians have the right to use any and all means, including the expression of resistance ("Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.") against Israeli violence.

IF both parties to the conflict, decided today to reset their perspective of the other, THEN what does the current law say? Clearly, the Israelis have to follow Article 43 of the Hague Regulation to:

"take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
------------------------------public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."​

(REFERENCES)

◈ Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

◈ Article 20

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

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

​

Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct​

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

(COMMENT)

As you can plainly see, the RoL in the fundamentals of peace throughout the territories was set over a half-century ago. But the "Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war" date back even farther; → to a time before the establishment of the Jewish State.

1.

Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

So, under the current laws, statements like following are a violation of the International Covenant and the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

 

[Hollie]

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

OK, now we are getting to the core of this part of the issue.

BLUF: The answer is → in any way that does not incite violence, or is likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinian claim that, in their words, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." And that they have the right to pursue this strategy which includes their right to incite violence and to speak out against, what they perceive as Israeli oppression. And in fact, that is the central justification that our friend "P F Tinmore" is using when he argues that the Arab Palestinians have the right to use any and all means, including the expression of resistance ("Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.") against Israeli violence.

IF both parties to the conflict, decided today to reset their perspective of the other, THEN what does the current law say? Clearly, the Israelis have to follow Article 43 of the Hague Regulation to:

"take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
------------------------------public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."​

(REFERENCES)

◈ Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

◈ Article 20

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

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

​

Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct​

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

(COMMENT)

As you can plainly see, the RoL in the fundamentals of peace throughout the territories was set over a half-century ago. But the "Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war" date back even farther; → to a time before the establishment of the Jewish State.

1.

Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

So, under the current laws, statements like following are a violation of the International Covenant and the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

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

OK, now we are getting to the core of this part of the issue.

BLUF: The answer is → in any way that does not incite violence, or is likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinian claim that, in their words, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." And that they have the right to pursue this strategy which includes their right to incite violence and to speak out against, what they perceive as Israeli oppression. And in fact, that is the central justification that our friend "P F Tinmore" is using when he argues that the Arab Palestinians have the right to use any and all means, including the expression of resistance ("Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.") against Israeli violence.

IF both parties to the conflict, decided today to reset their perspective of the other, THEN what does the current law say? Clearly, the Israelis have to follow Article 43 of the Hague Regulation to:

"take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
------------------------------public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."​

(REFERENCES)

◈ Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

◈ Article 20

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

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

​

Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct​

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

(COMMENT)

As you can plainly see, the RoL in the fundamentals of peace throughout the territories was set over a half-century ago. But the "Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war" date back even farther; → to a time before the establishment of the Jewish State.

1.

Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

So, under the current laws, statements like following are a violation of the International Covenant and the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

Your "...because I say so" claim of some crime against the Arabs-Moslems is really meaningless when you fail to identify what crime was committed.

 

[Hollie]

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

OK, now we are getting to the core of this part of the issue.

BLUF: The answer is → in any way that does not incite violence, or is likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian. The Arab Palestinian claim that, in their words, "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine." And that they have the right to pursue this strategy which includes their right to incite violence and to speak out against, what they perceive as Israeli oppression. And in fact, that is the central justification that our friend "P F Tinmore" is using when he argues that the Arab Palestinians have the right to use any and all means, including the expression of resistance ("Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular liberation war.") against Israeli violence.

IF both parties to the conflict, decided today to reset their perspective of the other, THEN what does the current law say? Clearly, the Israelis have to follow Article 43 of the Hague Regulation to:

"take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible,
------------------------------public order and safety,
while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."​

(REFERENCES)

◈ Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

◈ Article 20

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

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

​

Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct​

How does that fit into Palestinian self defense?

How can the Palestinians express resistance to Israeli violence without it being called incitement.

(COMMENT)

As you can plainly see, the RoL in the fundamentals of peace throughout the territories was set over a half-century ago. But the "Measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war" date back even farther; → to a time before the establishment of the Jewish State.

1.

Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression;

So, under the current laws, statements like following are a violation of the International Covenant and the Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL):

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.

..........
Most Respectfully,
R

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

Someone call security. I think these discussions are radicalizing PF Tinmore.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Again, you make the accusation. And, for more than "7 Decades," that is all it has been → a the rehash of a 70-year-old complaint. A rehash of a 70-year-old complain by a body [the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)] that were not even a party to the conflict and did not has a legitimate leadership to represent them until the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference of 1974. The HoAP was not a party to the conflict in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper.

And, oddly enough, the establishment of a "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" was not established until 8 years after the territories in dispute (the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem) were placed under the effective control of the Israelis.

◈ The Framework for Peace in the Middle East began with the Agreement at Camp David and later was signed 26 March 1979 ending the Armistice Agreement with Egypt and established a new internationally recognized permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.

◈ The Framework for Peace was further developed with the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty that was signed on 26 October 1994 (in which the international boundary between Jordan and Israel was delimited); a year after the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements 13 September 1993.​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

(COMMENT)

The creation of the "Jewish State," through the process of self-determination → and declared the independent State of Israel → was accomplished in the light of day. The unsuccessful act of aggression by the Arab League did not change the track of land declared independent. In fact, the Arab League failure ultimately expanded the territorial control of the Israelis. And with the stubborn resistance, on the part of the HoAP, to establish a dialog and enter into negotiations with the HoAP, has had a negative impact on the maintenance and control of a territory the HoAP can call their own.

The adherence to the political policy that: "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void" → is an ineffective policy and has been a counter-productive stance for more than a century. This policy has gained the Arab Palestinian little if any success for the inhabitance.
..........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Again, you make the accusation. And, for more than "7 Decades," that is all it has been → a the rehash of a 70-year-old complaint. A rehash of a 70-year-old complain by a body [the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)] that were not even a party to the conflict and did not has a legitimate leadership to represent them until the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference of 1974. The HoAP was not a party to the conflict in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper.

And, oddly enough, the establishment of a "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" was not established until 8 years after the territories in dispute (the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem) were placed under the effective control of the Israelis.

◈ The Framework for Peace in the Middle East began with the Agreement at Camp David and later was signed 26 March 1979 ending the Armistice Agreement with Egypt and established a new internationally recognized permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.

◈ The Framework for Peace was further developed with the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty that was signed on 26 October 1994 (in which the international boundary between Jordan and Israel was delimited); a year after the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements 13 September 1993.​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

(COMMENT)

The creation of the "Jewish State," through the process of self-determination → and declared the independent State of Israel → was accomplished in the light of day. The unsuccessful act of aggression by the Arab League did not change the track of land declared independent. In fact, the Arab League failure ultimately expanded the territorial control of the Israelis. And with the stubborn resistance, on the part of the HoAP, to establish a dialog and enter into negotiations with the HoAP, has had a negative impact on the maintenance and control of a territory the HoAP can call their own.

The adherence to the political policy that: "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void" → is an ineffective policy and has been a counter-productive stance for more than a century. This policy has gained the Arab Palestinian little if any success for the inhabitance.
..........
Most Respectfully,
R

That's nice but...

The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centers; setting fire to homes, properties, and goods; expelling residents; demolishing homes; and, finally, planting mines in the rubble to prevent the expelled inhabitants from returning.

The Zionist movement, led by Ben-Gurion, wasted no time in preparing for the eventuality of taking the land by force if it were not granted through diplomacy. These preparations included the building of an efficient military organization and the search for more ample financial resources (for which they tapped into the Jewish Diaspora). In many ways, the creation of an embryonic diplomatic corps was also an integral part of the same general preparations aimed at creating by force a state in Palestine.

http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf​

 

[Hollie]

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

Again, you make the accusation. And, for more than "7 Decades," that is all it has been → a the rehash of a 70-year-old complaint. A rehash of a 70-year-old complain by a body [the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP)] that were not even a party to the conflict and did not has a legitimate leadership to represent them until the Seventh Arab League Summit Conference of 1974. The HoAP was not a party to the conflict in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack on Yom Kipper.

And, oddly enough, the establishment of a "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" was not established until 8 years after the territories in dispute (the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem) were placed under the effective control of the Israelis.

◈ The Framework for Peace in the Middle East began with the Agreement at Camp David and later was signed 26 March 1979 ending the Armistice Agreement with Egypt and established a new internationally recognized permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel.

◈ The Framework for Peace was further developed with the Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty that was signed on 26 October 1994 (in which the international boundary between Jordan and Israel was delimited); a year after the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements 13 September 1993.​

For some time (since the turn of the century), one of the core accusations made by the Hostile Arab Palestinians, which has been levied against the State of Israel, → concerns the Rule of Law (RoL). The real core issue is whether or not Israel is following the RoL any better than the Arab Palestinian.

It is laughable that you invoke the rule of law. The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians. The existence of Israel is a crime against the Palestinians.

How are the Palestinians supposed to respond to 7 decades of Israeli aggression?

(COMMENT)

The creation of the "Jewish State," through the process of self-determination → and declared the independent State of Israel → was accomplished in the light of day. The unsuccessful act of aggression by the Arab League did not change the track of land declared independent. In fact, the Arab League failure ultimately expanded the territorial control of the Israelis. And with the stubborn resistance, on the part of the HoAP, to establish a dialog and enter into negotiations with the HoAP, has had a negative impact on the maintenance and control of a territory the HoAP can call their own.

The adherence to the political policy that: "The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate, and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void" → is an ineffective policy and has been a counter-productive stance for more than a century. This policy has gained the Arab Palestinian little if any success for the inhabitance.
..........
Most Respectfully,
R

That's nice but...

The orders came with a detailed description of the methods to be used to forcibly evict the people: large-scale intimidation; laying siege to and bombarding villages and population centers; setting fire to homes, properties, and goods; expelling residents; demolishing homes; and, finally, planting mines in the rubble to prevent the expelled inhabitants from returning.

The Zionist movement, led by Ben-Gurion, wasted no time in preparing for the eventuality of taking the land by force if it were not granted through diplomacy. These preparations included the building of an efficient military organization and the search for more ample financial resources (for which they tapped into the Jewish Diaspora). In many ways, the creation of an embryonic diplomatic corps was also an integral part of the same general preparations aimed at creating by force a state in Palestine.

http://www.whale.to/b/Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.pdf​

Indeed, that's nice, but....the Pal'istanian areas of the "Country of Pal'istan" (the country invented in 1924 by the Treaty of Lausanne), has been purged of Jews by adherents of The Religion of Peace.

Indeed, ethnic cleansing.

 

[Sixties Fan]

• [ But, but, but, Christianity must help its Muslim brothers against the Jews. What else do they know to do? ]
  
  
  What is clear -- and disturbing -- is that the UN officials in the Gaza Strip choose to remain silent when the Palestinian leaders came to their offices to incite their people to step up their terrorist attacks.
  
  
• The silence of the UN officials speaks volumes about their attitude toward anti-Israel incitement and blood libels against Jews, all of which have become an integral part of both the UN's and the Palestinians' culture.
  
  
• To Palestinians, all of Israel is one big settlement that needs to be displaced.
  
  
• Perhaps it is time to call out the UN for the racism it not only embodies but also perpetuates. Perhaps it is time for all nations, especially the United States which shoulders so much of the UN's bill, finally to pay only for what they want and to get what they pay for.
  
  (full article online)
  
  Terrorists Call for Killing Jews -- from UN HQ in Gaza

 

[Sixties Fan]

As the Jerusalem Post reminds us:

“In March, the Palestinian Authority announced it would stop providing its citizens with medical treatment in Israel. This was its reaction to the Israeli decision to withhold $138 million in tax money from the PA, which is the implementation of the Jewish state’s “Pay-for-Slay” law that instructs it to deduct and freeze the amount of money the authority pays in salaries to imprisoned terrorists and families of “martyrs” from the tax money Israel collects for it.”



Apparently the BBC is not interested in stories relating to healthcare in the Gaza Strip if they cannot be used to promote the inaccurate view that (as also claimed by Hamas) that the system’s many problems are primarily attributable to Israel’s counter-terrorism measures and the roles of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in creating and exacerbating the crisis cannot be airbrushed from the story.

(full article online)

A Gaza healthcare story the BBC chooses to ignore

 

[Sixties Fan]

I am not sure how successful any of us have been in breaking this cognitive war blockade. Linda Sarsour, no longer a women’s rights leader, now the Pro-Palestine activist that she has always been, continues to appear on campuses around the country as do countless others who share her views.



This anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist onslaught also exists online, in private groups devoted to other academic subjects (psychology, psychiatry, the history of feminism), where no one is particularly expert in Middle East matters. This does not stop the poisonous propaganda from appearing.



In my time, I have left two online groups and was forced out of a third. Always, always, the same two reasons were at issue. An outpouring of raw anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism which was allowed to dominate the conversation—or an undigested piece of pro-Palestine and pro-Islamist propaganda which took pride of place instead of our usual discussion. Holding another, more knowledgeable or more positive view on Israel or a critical view of Islam, even in terms of women’s rights, was always interpreted as a Thought Crime, a High Crime, a traitorous act, and as proof of racism, Islamophobia, and right-wing conservatism.



Encountering this was always sobering, enraging, demoralizing, and sometimes even traumatic. But what most got my attention was either the pile-on (when and if it occurred) or, something far more ominous: The silence, the utter silence of the bystanders.



Recently, I unexpectedly experienced yet another online anti-Semitic rant. I decided to share it with one of my Shabbos guests, a 92-year-old survivor of three Holocaust-era forced labor camps. I wanted her view of the matter.

(full article online)

The silent bystanders in the war against the Jews

 

[Sixties Fan]

One would think that this case would appeal to the larger human rights organizations working in Israel - Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Rabbis for Human Rights, Yesh Din. All these groups are pro-Palestinian, and here is a Palestinian who is being oppressed simply because of his beliefs.

Yet when B'Tzalmo asked for help from these organizations, they refused.

These organizations either don't care about human rights, or they don't consider Jews to be fully human.

All they need to do is a single tweet to defend a man who is being persecuted for his beliefs. A Palestinian, no less. Public pressure from any major human rights organization will shame the PA into releasing them.

But they refuse, even when asked.

(full article online)


"Human rights groups" refuse to help a Palestinian being imprisoned and tortured for his beliefs ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians

And the creation of the Ottoman Empire was a crime against all whom it conquered and slaugtered. How far back would you like to go?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians

And the creation of the Ottoman Empire was a crime against all whom it conquered and slaugtered. How far back would you like to go?

Conquest was not illegal in the 1500s.

 

[Hollie]

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians

And the creation of the Ottoman Empire was a crime against all whom it conquered and slaugtered. How far back would you like to go?

Conquest was not illegal in the 1500s.

The Islamic fascist proscription of imposing the dhimmi status on non-Islamics was not illegal but was eventually unenforceable by the Islamic fascists.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The creation of Israel was a crime against the Palestinians

And the creation of the Ottoman Empire was a crime against all whom it conquered and slaugtered. How far back would you like to go?

Conquest was not illegal in the 1500s.

The Islamic fascist proscription of imposing the dhimmi status on non-Islamics was not illegal but was eventually unenforceable by the Islamic fascists.

Dhimmi status has never been an issue in Palestine.

Why do you keep bringing it up?