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

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: For the Special Rapporteur (past and present) on the situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 → have attempted to force an aura of self-importance or halo that suggests they are relevant to the course of human events in the Middle East. The Special Rapporteur uses a number of different techniques, the most common of which is a repetition of a statement or statements in their reports. These changes involve very slight but spectacularly important changes to the wording. One of the most common of these is the one repeated hereby our friend "P F Tinmore."

"The Special Rapporteur observed that the absolute prohibition against annexation applies whether the occupied territory was acquired through a war of aggression or a defensive war."​

See the previous Posting #3026

But neither comes anywhere close to your premise "illegal to annex occupied territory."

“International law is very clear: annexation and territorial conquest are forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. “The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

This reflects the seminal observation of Lassa Oppenheim, a renowned scholar of international law, who wrote in 1917, amidst the bloodbath of the First World War, that: “There is not an atom of sovereignty in the authority of the occupying power.”

The Special Rapporteur observed that the absolute prohibition against annexation applies whether the occupied territory was acquired through a war of aggression or a defensive war.

Annexation is a flagrant violation of international law, says UN human rights expert

GENEVA (20 June 2019) - Recent statements by senior Israeli political leaders and US diplomats in support of the annexation of parts or all of the occupied West Bank by Israel fly in the face of the absolute prohibition against the annexation of occupied territories, a UN human rights expert...

www.ohchr.org

(COMMENT)

First, UNSC Resolution S/RES/242 (1967) uses the language:

◈ "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"​

IT DOES NOT SAY:​

◈ "territory was acquired through a war of aggression or defensive war"​

Second, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter does not address the issue of "acquisition at all.

◈ "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,"​

​

The Special Rapporteurs try their best to confuse the issues. But Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot)(Chief Drafter of S/RES/242) made it very plain what the intent was in that regard. He went on to say that the use of the 1967 Boundaries was NOT to form of a permanent frontier.

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

The Special Rapporteurs are desperately trying to use the Charter and the UNSC Resolution as justification for their anti-Israeli position. And Lord Caradon is no longer about to clarify the meaning. Thus we can only go on the written records in which they are twisting the words to amplify the false, inaccurate, or misleading information relative to the intent as to the carefully worded UNSC Resolution.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: For the Special Rapporteur (past and present) on the situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 → have attempted to force an aura of self-importance or halo that suggests they are relevant to the course of human events in the Middle East. The Special Rapporteur uses a number of different techniques, the most common of which is a repetition of a statement or statements in their reports. These changes involve very slight but spectacularly important changes to the wording. One of the most common of these is the one repeated hereby our friend "P F Tinmore."

"The Special Rapporteur observed that the absolute prohibition against annexation applies whether the occupied territory was acquired through a war of aggression or a defensive war."​

See the previous Posting #3026

But neither comes anywhere close to your premise "illegal to annex occupied territory."

“International law is very clear: annexation and territorial conquest are forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. “The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

This reflects the seminal observation of Lassa Oppenheim, a renowned scholar of international law, who wrote in 1917, amidst the bloodbath of the First World War, that: “There is not an atom of sovereignty in the authority of the occupying power.”

The Special Rapporteur observed that the absolute prohibition against annexation applies whether the occupied territory was acquired through a war of aggression or a defensive war.

Annexation is a flagrant violation of international law, says UN human rights expert

GENEVA (20 June 2019) - Recent statements by senior Israeli political leaders and US diplomats in support of the annexation of parts or all of the occupied West Bank by Israel fly in the face of the absolute prohibition against the annexation of occupied territories, a UN human rights expert...

www.ohchr.org

(COMMENT)

First, UNSC Resolution S/RES/242 (1967) uses the language:

◈ "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"​

IT DOES NOT SAY:​

◈ "territory was acquired through a war of aggression or defensive war"​

Second, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter does not address the issue of "acquisition at all.

◈ "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,"​

​

The Special Rapporteurs try their best to confuse the issues. But Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot)(Chief Drafter of S/RES/242) made it very plain what the intent was in that regard. He went on to say that the use of the 1967 Boundaries was NOT to form of a permanent frontier.

​

I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

The Special Rapporteurs are desperately trying to use the Charter and the UNSC Resolution as justification for their anti-Israeli position. And Lord Caradon is no longer about to clarify the meaning. Thus we can only go on the written records in which they are twisting the words to amplify the false, inaccurate, or misleading information relative to the intent as to the carefully worded UNSC Resolution.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman! What are you trying to confuse here? Resolution 242 was just word salad. How is it relevant to annexation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did the Jordanian authorities finance the construction of the homes owned by Jews before 1948?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I just have to chuckle when you challenge me like this. If you go back to your Posting #3029 you will see where you used UNSC Resolution 242 as a reference in the same way that the UN Special Rapporteur used it. (See below)

But neither comes anywhere close to your premise "illegal to annex occupied territory."

“International law is very clear: annexation and territorial conquest are forbidden by the Charter of the United Nations,” said Michael Lynk, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967. “The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

(COMMENT)

If there is "Holy obfuscation" or "confusion" here, it is only because I swept away your usage of the UNSC Resolution. The confusion would NOT come from me because I used it.

Again, this is an example of classic Arab Palestinian "misdirection." If you are going to make a case for the Arab Palestinian, why don't you just use your "own words" and not the words from the likes of the UN Special Rapporteur (drama Queens and Cry Babies). You have the capacity (I think) to make a much better contribution than do the UN Special Rapporteurs.

Having said that, if I were you, I would not try and justify the Arab Palestinian use of force and violence (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence). It simply does not work. You cannot use the language of the UN Special Rapporteurs (past and present) to justify violence (the threat or actual use of force) as in "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" or the "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

It is not consistent to argue that the Arab Palestinian has an imperative to threaten the use of force - and the actual use of force and violence against Israeli territorial integrity or political independence - THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.​

​

It is not consistent to argue that the Arab Palestinians want to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered, - THEN - turn around and advocate unrest and hatred through the incitement of hostility or violence → prohibited by Human Rights law promoted by the UN Special Rapporteurs. ​

It simply does NOT work unless you use the same means of deceptive marketing as that used by the Snake Oil Salesman and the Flimflam artist.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is not consistent to argue that the Arab Palestinians want to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered,

What process is that? What would work for them?

 

[P F Tinmore]

(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence).

Was name calling your major in university?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" or the "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

That is really old. You need to update your propaganda.

 

[P F Tinmore]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

 

[P F Tinmore]

your Posting #3029 you will see where you used UNSC Resolution 242 as a reference

“The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

It is interesting that the acquisition of territory by war is mentioned about the 1967 war but never about the Nakba.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Having said that, if I were you, I would not try and justify the Arab Palestinian use of force and violence

Now that is funny. Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands, but if one or two Israelis bite the dust the terrorist cards start flying.

 

[Hollie]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times. You refuse to accept that reality because it causes you such emotional distress and apparently conflicts with your politico-religious ideology.

living under a delusion that if you ignore a reality, that reality doesn’t exist, has definitions in the medical world.

 

[P F Tinmore]

why don't you just use your "own words"

Then everyone asks for a link. Often times I can't remember where I obtaineda piece of knowledge. It is just a cumulative thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times. You refuse to accept that reality because it causes you such emotional distress and apparently conflicts with your politico-religious ideology.

living under a delusion that if you ignore a reality, that reality doesn’t exist, has definitions in the medical world.

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Indeed, but Israel still has no defined territory.

 

[Hollie]

Having said that, if I were you, I would not try and justify the Arab Palestinian use of force and violence

Now that is funny. Israel kills Palestinian civilians by the thousands, but if one or two Israelis bite the dust the terrorist cards start flying.

Now that is funny… in a mordant way. Your Islamic terrorist heroes preach the glory of death in the gee-had and you press your children into the service of dying as “martyrs”. When Israel responds to Islamic terrorist attacks, you recoil in shocked surprise at the results.

It is an act of war when the the “country of Pal’istan”, which as you insist was invented by the Treaty of Lausanne, attacks another nation.

Got your Pom Poms ready?

Abbas wants more blood | PMW Analysis

Following days of intense Palestinian rioting in Jerusalem and a night in which 205 Palestinians and 17 Israeli police officers were injured, instead of calling for calm, Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party yesterday publicized a call for increased rioting and violence

www.palwatch.org

Following days of intense Palestinian rioting in Jerusalem and a night in which 205 Palestinians and 17 Israeli police officers were injured, instead of calling for calm, Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party yesterday publicized a call for increased rioting and violence.

“The Fatah Movement with all its elements and leadership calls to continue this uprising… [Israeli policy] will lead to a comprehensive confrontation in all the Palestinian lands, including a reexamination of the rules of engagement… Fatah calls on everyone to raise the level of confrontation in the coming days and hours in the Palestinian lands, the points of friction, and the settlers’ roads.”

 

[Hollie]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times. You refuse to accept that reality because it causes you such emotional distress and apparently conflicts with your politico-religious ideology.

living under a delusion that if you ignore a reality, that reality doesn’t exist, has definitions in the medical world.

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Indeed, but Israel still has no defined territory.

Indeed, you appear to be suffering from a delusional disorder.

 

[Hollie]

why don't you just use your "own words"

Then everyone asks for a link. Often times I can't remember where I obtaineda piece of knowledge. It is just a cumulative thing.

Indeed, it is just a lack of knowledge thing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times. You refuse to accept that reality because it causes you such emotional distress and apparently conflicts with your politico-religious ideology.

living under a delusion that if you ignore a reality, that reality doesn’t exist, has definitions in the medical world.

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Indeed, but Israel still has no defined territory.

Indeed, you appear to be suffering from a delusional disorder.

Is that why every map of Israel shows armistice lines?

 

[Hollie]

THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times. You refuse to accept that reality because it causes you such emotional distress and apparently conflicts with your politico-religious ideology.

living under a delusion that if you ignore a reality, that reality doesn’t exist, has definitions in the medical world.

Israel’s defined territory, meaning the nation’s borders and sovereign territory has been addressed for you dozens of times.

Indeed, but Israel still has no defined territory.

Indeed, you appear to be suffering from a delusional disorder.

Is that why every map of Israel shows armistice lines?

Indeed, your delusional disorder needs treatment. Do you recall the border agreements Israel signed with neighboring Arab nations, which, when supplied to you were rejected as not existing?

That was a real hoot.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: As long as the Arab Palestinian cannot be pleased with any outcome other than the one they submit, they will not invoke a peaceful means.

It is not consistent to argue that the Arab Palestinians want to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered,

What process is that? What would work for them?

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians have not identified a means of peaceful resolution without attaching a precondition.

RoccoR said:
(Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence).

Was name calling your major in university?

RoccoR said:
"Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine" or the "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."

That is really old. You need to update your propaganda.[/quote]

(COMMENT)

You use that "name-calling" shick quite frequently. Are you denying that the terminology is incorrectly applied? These are behaviors and activities - not an ad hominem noun nomenclature. I use this language becausse3 it is applicable to the discussion and because different factions within the group of Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) refer to themselves as they wish the world to see them. But, NOT as they truly are.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

The Arab Palestinians see themselves and their position on "Armed Struggle" in direct opposition to any sort of peaceful settlement. They do NOT see themselves in the broader class of Criminal Activist and Political Conspirators with the special circumstance of "Murder for Hire." In general, the HoAP activities are subject to punishment under Article 68 of the Geneva Convention (Customary and International Humanitarian Law).

These two points — that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors and that this specifically applies to the Palestinian people — has been repeatedly reaffirmed in a myriad of United Nations resolutions. These include UNGAResolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981), and many others. While these resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law per se, they do reflect the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states, which is the basis of customary international law. So although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in of themselves, when they address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states.
SOURCE: Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism • 2004 • By John Sigler

While most people associate the solution of "Jihad" with the Covenant of 1988, the language is still current and found in Paragraph 23 of the HAMAS General Prinicles and Policies of 2017.

Resistance and jihad for the liberation of Palestine will remain a legitimate right, a duty and an honour for all the sons and daughters of our people and our Ummah.
SOURCE: General Principles and Policies • HAMAS

I'm in the 21st Century and not still stuck in the dogma of themid-20th Century HoAP.

RoccoR said:
THEN - turn around and say that Israel has no right to defend it's established territorial integrity or political independence.

What is Israel's defined territory?[/quote]
(COMMENT)

I thought we just went over this:

(REFERENCES)​

​

◈ 23 January 2020 Posting # 374​

​

◈ 20 September 2020 Posting #290​

​

◈ 11 November 2020 Posting #955​

✦ Franco-British Convention of 23 December 1920​

Posting #631 and more recently Posting #1356.

◈ Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement Oslo II (1995) Map 6 •​

​

◈ Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel •​

​

◈ Golan Heights Law •​

​

◈ Egypt and Israel Treaty of Peace w/MAP (1979) •​

​

◈ Jordan-Israeli Peace Treaty (1994) •​

​

◈ Letter dated 12 June 2000 from the Permanent Representative of Lebanon •​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: When you speak of the Armistice Lines, you are actually talking about the 1948 Conflict.

your Posting #3029 you will see where you used UNSC Resolution 242 as a reference

“The Security Council, beginning with Resolution 242 in November 1967, has expressly affirmed the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war or force on eight occasions, most recently in 2016.”

It is interesting that the acquisition of territory by war is mentioned about the 1967 war but never about the Nakba.

(COMMENT)

The 1948 Conflict involving the Arab League incursion is what it is. The 1967 Conflict was merely an extension of the 1948 Conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R