Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

The fact that the Jewish people, like all people, have an inherent, inviolable right to self-determination on ancestral homelands is not an ATTACK on other people.

What about their attacks on other people? Why try to confuse that with "self-determination?"

Because self-determination for all people is -- SHOULD BE -- the starting place. If you begin with the idea that BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have inherent, inviolable rights to self-determination in that territory then you will see that the presence of NEITHER people is an attack on the other.

And once THAT is out of the way, its a simple conflict which a simple solution.

OK, I have:

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

What do you have?

 

[Hollie]

The fact that the Jewish people, like all people, have an inherent, inviolable right to self-determination on ancestral homelands is not an ATTACK on other people.

What about their attacks on other people? Why try to confuse that with "self-determination?"

Because self-determination for all people is -- SHOULD BE -- the starting place. If you begin with the idea that BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have inherent, inviolable rights to self-determination in that territory then you will see that the presence of NEITHER people is an attack on the other.

And once THAT is out of the way, its a simple conflict which a simple solution.

OK, I have:

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

What do you have?

The Israeli right to self defense from acts of Islamic terrorism.

All you have is apologetics for Islamic terrorists. Hows’ that workin’ out for ya’ so far?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Mandate for Palestine is a legal document. It provides for a State for the Jewish peoples.

Where does it say that. Quote the passage.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Israeli right to self defense from acts of Islamic terrorism.

Do you have a link for that?

 

[Hollie]

The Israeli right to self defense from acts of Islamic terrorism.

Do you have a link for that?

I sure do.

Do you have a link to something contrary?

 

[Shusha]

What do you have?

You're kidding, right? We have everything I just posted (AGAIN!) in post #2691. We have UNGA #273. And there's one more thing...Jeeze what was it again? Oh YEAH! We have an actual State.

 

[Shusha]

The Israeli right to self defense from acts of Islamic terrorism.

Do you have a link for that?

Surely you are not going to argue that some States and some peoples have no right to defend themselves, are you?

Article 51 of the UN Charter: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations ...

 

[Shusha]

The Mandate for Palestine is a legal document. It provides for a State for the Jewish peoples.

Where does it say that. Quote the passage.

Post #2691. From no more than a few hours ago. Sheesh.

I know, I know...you are going to argue that it doesn't use the word "State", aren't you? Lame. Note that your UN resolutions concerning the Arab Palestinians also don't use the word "State". UNGA 273 does. Oops.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The fact that the Jewish people, like all people, have an inherent, inviolable right to self-determination on ancestral homelands is not an ATTACK on other people.

What about their attacks on other people? Why try to confuse that with "self-determination?"

Because self-determination for all people is -- SHOULD BE -- the starting place. If you begin with the idea that BOTH the Jewish people and the Arab Palestinian people have inherent, inviolable rights to self-determination in that territory then you will see that the presence of NEITHER people is an attack on the other.

And once THAT is out of the way, its a simple conflict which a simple solution.

OK, I have:

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 and UN General Assembly Resolution 3237​

What do you have?

That resolution was in 1974, after 4 failed wars against Israel, and 10 years after Arafat and the KGB created the Palestinians as a Nationality and the KGB created several other nationalities around the world.

That is after the Arabs rejected Partitions in 1937 and 1947.

Did you bother to read the whole article from the link you posted? Here is some of it:

"
Particularly interesting and problematic is the following:

5. Further recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

The above phrase is a masterpiece of ambiguity. It could mean that the Palestinians have the right to use all means (including indiscriminate terror against civilians) to attain their rights, in accordance with the fact that the UN Charter supports self-determination. However, it could mean that they have the right to attain their rights only using means that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter, which does not support war crimes. Though it is hard to believe, since at the time of adoption of the resolution, the PLO and other Palestinian groups were engaged in hijacking air planes and killing school children, the former interpretation may be the correct one.

--------------
So, what does that resolution actually mean to you?
Does it include hijacks, bus blowing, killing school children, etc?
Is that the right way to become an Independent State after one has refused two partitions and lost 4 wars to destroy Israel?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Is that the right way to become an Independent State after one has refused two partitions and lost 4 wars to destroy Israel?

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

What wars have the Palestinians lost? Link? Hint, the Palestinians have never had an army?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Is that the right way to become an Independent State after one has refused two partitions and lost 4 wars to destroy Israel?

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

What wars have the Palestinians lost? Link? Hint, the Palestinians have never had an army?

You are beyond laughable. Laugh, clown, laugh.

You do not know the meaning of a country.
Keep confusing the region called Palestine with some country which never existed and which the Arabs refused to create because they wanted the whole pie.

But, let us look at how the Arab "Palestinians" easily gave away 78% of their "country" to the Hashemite clan so that they could create "their country" out of most of the Mandate for Palestine.

Or also, let us look how the Arab Palestinians never cried at all when Jordan took the "West Bank" and Egypt took Gaza and kept all of that for 19 years all to themselves.

Not for one second did the "Arab Palestinians" cry a river over their country STOLEN by their fellow Arab Egyptian or Jordanian .

And neither have you !!!!!!!!

Don't let me keep you from clowning around.

Forward

 

[Shusha]

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

You're kidding, right?

North and South Korea. Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovena, Kosovo. Sudan and South Sudan. India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. USSR. Ireland.

Um. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

Also places where it hasn't happened yet (and may not): Canada and Quebec. Spain and Catalonia. China and Tibet. UK and Scotland. Iraq and Kurdistan. The US and Hawaii.


How many did you want me to name?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
※→ P F Tinmore,Sixties Fan, et al,

Oh come-on now. Be realistic.

Is that the right way to become an Independent State after one has refused two partitions and lost 4 wars to destroy Israel?

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

What wars have the Palestinians lost? Link? Hint, the Palestinians have never had an army?

(COMMENT)

It is true that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has never had a conventional fighting force; they have had numerous Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, to include but not limited to: the Palestinian Black Hand, the Holy War Army, the Arab Liberation Army, --- and:

1. Hamas
2. Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)
5. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
6. Popular Front for theLiberation of Palestine (PFLP)
7. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
8. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)
9. Harakat al-Sabireen

The Mandate for Palestine was not a place. And besides, they left Palestine without a treaty with Israel.

(COMMENT)

Technically, the Mandate is a legal instrument, and place is called the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" by the Palestine Order-in-Council, hereinafter described as Palestine." But I find it very odd that since everyone in this discussion group knows what was meant. You comment added nothing to the content.

No, It was Zionist settler colonialism.

(COMMENT)

Technically, there was never any colonialism. The Zionist (prior to May 1948) did not extend any type of influence through the control over a dependent Arab Palestinians or any territory over which the Mandate Applied. The Zionist/Jewish Settlers and Refugees were immigrants who were willing to assist Mandatory Power in the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as agreed by the Allied Powers and at the direction of the League of Nations. And again, while it was true that the territories under the Mandate were "non-self governing," the Mandate called for the development of self-governing institutions which the Arab Palestinian declined to participate.

Technically, the Arab Palestinians, who at every opportunity to participate in the governing, declined to do so. The Arab Palestinians, essentially said that if they cannot have it all the would turn to non-peaceful means and resort to violence. The Arab Palestinians would have nothing to defend, since they never established any sovereignty or territorial integrity.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

What other people would give away part of their country? Give me some names.

You're kidding, right?

North and South Korea. Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovena, Kosovo. Sudan and South Sudan. India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. USSR. Ireland.

Um. The Ottoman Empire and Turkey.

Also places where it hasn't happened yet (and may not): Canada and Quebec. Spain and Catalonia. China and Tibet. UK and Scotland. Iraq and Kurdistan. The US and Hawaii.


How many did you want me to name?

Not the same thing. None of those had to chop off part of their countries to give to foreign settlers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is true that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) has never had a conventional fighting force; they have had numerous Jihadist, Virulent Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters, to include but not limited to: the Palestinian Black Hand, the Holy War Army, the Arab Liberation Army, --- and:

1. Hamas
2. Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
4. Popular Resistance Committees (PRC)
5. Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)
6. Popular Front for theLiberation of Palestine (PFLP)
7. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
8. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC)
9. Harakat al-Sabireen

Those are all civilian militias. How many of those have a tank, or an airplane, or artillery.

Those are all responses to Israel's military attacks against Palestine's civilian population.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Technically, the Mandate is a legal instrument, and place is called the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" by the Palestine Order-in-Council, hereinafter described as Palestine." But I find it very odd that since everyone in this discussion group knows what was meant. You comment added nothing to the content.

No, you have that wrong. The Order in Council was when Britain occupied Turkish territory.

The Mandate could not apply until after Turkey ceded the land to Palestine. That changed the rules for British control. Actually it was supposed to be assistance not control. But Britain continued to treat Palestine like a military occupation.

Naturally, the Palestinians opposed a military occupation.

 

[Shusha]

Not the same thing. None of those had to chop off part of their countries to give to foreign settlers.

None of those countries viewed the obvious indigenous peoples as "foreign settlers". Neither do you, since you have admitted in the past that the Jewish people resident in the land are, indeed, indigenous peoples.

Therefore what you are really arguing is that people removed from the land become foreigners and have no claim to the land. Fine. So be it. Refugee problem solved.

 

[Shusha]

The Mandate could not apply until after Turkey ceded the land to Palestine.

Turkey did not cede land to Palestine. Turkey renounced all claims to territory outside that territory granted to her in the Treaty of Lausanne. Those lands came under the control of other parties.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Technically, there was never any colonialism.

You're joking, right?

Britain called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. The Palestinians call it colonialism. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism.

Then you say it is not. And all this on territory that Israel has never legally acquired.

Oh, what to believe, what to believe???

 

[Shusha]

Technically, there was never any colonialism.

You're joking, right?

Britain called it colonialism. The Zionists called it colonialism. The Palestinians call it colonialism. History calls it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism.

Then you say it is not. And all this on territory that Israel has never legally acquired.

Oh, what to believe, what to believe???

Apparently you believe whatever nonsense you make up in your own head regardless of actual law and fact.

How's about addressing the legal document the Mandate for Palestine which gives the legal right for the Jewish people to enact sovereignty over land. How's about you address UNGA 273 which confirms and recognizes that legal process.