Boycott Israel

[P F Tinmore]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Why do you not understand?

Bullshit makes no sense.

 

[Hollie]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Why do you not understand?

Bullshit makes no sense.

Try to offer a coherent response.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How foolish can you be.

There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.

Not true, of course. All people have the right to self-defense.

I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.

Link?

(COMMENT)

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

The HoAP are NOT, repeat "NOT" operating in self-defense. Every act of HoAP violence, what you claim is "self-defense," is (in point of fact) criminal and punishable under Article 68 GCIV. You claim you are under "occupation." In fact, the HoAP call the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip (collectively) the "occupied Palestinian territories." And you call the Israelis the "occupiers." Well, any attack against the occupation force (ie the Israelis) is a "War Crime" {Article 8[2a(i)] and Article 8[2b(i)(iI)] page 5, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court}.

Each act taken against Article 43 obligations (Hague Convention) is an act punishable by Article 68, GCIV as a criminal act.

When you (and in this case I mean YOU personally) utter the words that suggest to the HoAP it is somehow lawful to attack the Israelis, you are advocating violence. It is 100% unlawful for any of the HoAP of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip to engage by:

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;​

Any time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).

​

You cannot deny this. You cannot say "you did not know." And, you cannot claim that just because a Pro-Arab Palestinian Panel did not say → "go commit violence" → when they say "it is justified under self-defense" you do so with the design that it is likely to provoke or encourage threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of violence. Again, this is, in itself a criminal act.

(SUPPLEMENTAL)

I think your Posting #6891 (just as an example) is a case where you are advocating that it is lawful to commit acts of violence under the color of law (self-defense).

You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization" as designated by over 30 countries just in the European Union alone; not to mention the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Why do you not understand?

Bullshit makes no sense.

Try to offer a coherent response.

Response to irrelevance? There is nothing to respond to.

 

[rylah]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Because Your enemy is defined by mere ethnicity.
And the mere presence of that ethnic group an act of aggression.

This is not self-defense, but a blatant call to genocide and an attempt at complete Arab Muslim domination over the entire middle east at the expense of all indigenous minorities.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How foolish can you be.

There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.

Not true, of course. All people have the right to self-defense.

I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.

Link?

(COMMENT)

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

The HoAP are NOT, repeat "NOT" operating in self-defense. Every act of HoAP violence, what you claim is "self-defense," is (in point of fact) criminal and punishable under Article 68 GCIV. You claim you are under "occupation." In fact, the HoAP call the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip (collectively) the "occupied Palestinian territories." And you call the Israelis the "occupiers." Well, any attack against the occupation force (ie the Israelis) is a "War Crime" {Article 8[2a(i)] and Article 8[2b(i)(iI)] page 5, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court}.

Each act taken against Article 43 obligations (Hague Convention) is an act punishable by Article 68, GCIV as a criminal act.

When you (and in this case I mean YOU personally) utter the words that suggest to the HoAP it is somehow lawful to attack the Israelis, you are advocating violence. It is 100% unlawful for any of the HoAP of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip to engage by:

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;​

Any time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).

​

You cannot deny this. You cannot say "you did not know." And, you cannot claim that just because a Pro-Arab Palestinian Panel did not say → "go commit violence" → when they say "it is justified under self-defense" you do so with the design that it is likely to provoke or encourage threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of violence. Again, this is, in itself a criminal act.

(SUPPLEMENTAL)

I think your Posting #6891 (just as an example) is a case where you are advocating that it is lawful to commit acts of violence under the color of law (self-defense).

You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization" as designated by over 30 countries just in the European Union alone; not to mention the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

Such sour grapes. The Israelis returned to the land conquered earlier by the Islamist settler colonial project.

While the man-god you worship; Mo’, promised you the land as an islamist waqf, that was not to be.

You still have Arabia.

 

[Hollie]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Why do you not understand?

Bullshit makes no sense.

Try to offer a coherent response.

Response to irrelevance? There is nothing to respond to.

What you mean is that you can’t find a YouTube video to spam the thread with.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The inherent right of a state to self-defense is recognized in the UN Charter only in cases where the victim is the subject of an armed attack. The Arab Palestinians were never subject to an armed attack by Israel.

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) set-up and recognized some criteria (originally derived from the Just War Principles) for the use of force:

listed six criteria, inspired by just war principles, that would constitute a legitimate (but not necessarily legal) humanitarian intervention:

(1) right cause,

(2) right intention,

(3) right authority,

(4) last resort,

(5) proportionate means, and

(6) reasonable prospects.​

This set of criteria constitutes a legitimate humanitarian intervention, but not necessarily legal intervention. Which is an impossible distinction to argue?

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self-defense?

(BACKGROUND)

The legal skeptics start with the basic presumption that the use of force is illegal as indicated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The only legitimate exceptions to this rule are military actions taken in the name of either self-defense (Article 51) or collective security (in which case the Security Council authorizes the use of force explicitly through a resolution adopted under Chapter VII).

(COMMENT)

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) that are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations cannot be in a "self-defense" mode because they never had any sovereign control to defend; nor, were they a legitimate state that performed the functions of government. To this day, after well over a half-century, the HoAP have yet to establish control over any territorial perimeter except the Gaza Strip (after 2005) and Area "A" in the West Bank (after the Oslo Accords). The territory under the control of the Israelis today, were left to the Israeli Occupation force in July 1988 after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the territory which the maintained sovereign control over since 1950.

You are asking the wrong question! You should be asking:

◈ What sovereignty did the HoAP have under it control that it is now defending?

.....................................Or looking at it another way →

◈ By what authority do the HoAP engage in conflict in defense of what territory?​

ny time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).

OK, so how does this apply?

(COMMENT)

Again, not you --- or --- anyone else may make the claim that they have a self-defense right to engage, when in fact, they have no sovereign territory that they are defending; not now --- not ever. Even the non-member observer status of 2012 does not grant either statehood or any type of sovereignty.

Remember, the Israelis did not assume control of any Palestinian Territory. It Assumed control (in the case of the West Bank and Jerusalem) territory that was under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[TrueTT]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Because Your enemy is defined by mere ethnicity.
And the mere presence of that ethnic group an act of aggression.

This is not self-defense, but a blatant call to genocide and an attempt at complete Arab Muslim domination over the entire middle east at the expense of all indigenous minorities.

Can you believe some of the comments from these people?

At what point do you draw the line for morality's sake? Combatants are identified by their uniforms on the battlefield, not their ethnicity or religion....

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, come on --- get real!

You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization" (FTO)

How can they be "foreign terrorists" when they cross no borders?

(COMMENT)

Like FTO's are a matter of perspective. If the HoAP is engaging targets of any kind within declared Israeli Sovereign Territory, then from the perspective of everyone else, they have become an FTO.

It doesn't matter the position the HoAP take. If they cross the demarcation established by the treaties with Jordan and Egypt, they become FTOs.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, get real.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Settlements are established under therterms mutually agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

Why is this not self defense?

Because Your enemy is defined by mere ethnicity.
And the mere presence of that ethnic group an act of aggression.

This is not self-defense, but a blatant call to genocide and an attempt at complete Arab Muslim domination over the entire middle east at the expense of all indigenous minorities.

Can you believe some of the comments from these people?

At what point do you draw the line for morality's sake? Combatants are identified by their uniforms on the battlefield, not their ethnicity or religion....

The comments are usually blatantly racist bigotry and promotion of, what in my view are enemies of the free world, the more of their people they murdered the more support. But that's from my perspective as an Israeli, I'm still learning American politics, and yes the more I interact the more disenfranchised I feel, from the blatant racist ideology and lexicon so openly common in the culture.

In comparison, who can You be racist against in Israel?
There's not much variety of identity conflicts, Arabs or Jews.
Open an American tv, and it's "black, white, yellow, red, brown" clashed against each other and presented as some virtue of being socially involved. A movie I've recently watched, by Dinesh D'Souza "Death of a Nation", still digesting the information, and needs to be researched a bit, but helped me have a more clear framework of the political map.

The question regarding the balance of safety of soldiers vs the civilian population of the enemy has noting to do with ethnic terms, if it was for G-d forbid a dead Jew in Israel, there had to die, what, 10, 100 million Arabs?

The main thing here is to create real deterrence among the civilian population, not to join, or even fight and betray the Jihadi psychos.

 

[rylah]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

How foolish can you be.

There is not inherent or legal right for the Arab Palestinians to pursue armed struggle.

Not true, of course. All people have the right to self-defense.

I haven't seen any panel discussions where they promoted violence.

Link?

(COMMENT)

You just did. You are trying to convince people that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) are conducting Jihadist, Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic, and Asymmetric Operations in "self-defense." And that is a green light to violence.

The HoAP are NOT, repeat "NOT" operating in self-defense. Every act of HoAP violence, what you claim is "self-defense," is (in point of fact) criminal and punishable under Article 68 GCIV. You claim you are under "occupation." In fact, the HoAP call the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip (collectively) the "occupied Palestinian territories." And you call the Israelis the "occupiers." Well, any attack against the occupation force (ie the Israelis) is a "War Crime" {Article 8[2a(i)] and Article 8[2b(i)(iI)] page 5, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court}.

Each act taken against Article 43 obligations (Hague Convention) is an act punishable by Article 68, GCIV as a criminal act.

When you (and in this case I mean YOU personally) utter the words that suggest to the HoAP it is somehow lawful to attack the Israelis, you are advocating violence. It is 100% unlawful for any of the HoAP of the West Bank, Jerusalem, or Gaza Strip to engage by:

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

◈ Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;​

Any time you suggest that it is somehow lawful to engage in the acts stated (supra), YOU are doing so with the intention of - or calculated to - cause violence: which are prohibited by law → incitement to commit violations under S/RES/1624 (2005).

​

You cannot deny this. You cannot say "you did not know." And, you cannot claim that just because a Pro-Arab Palestinian Panel did not say → "go commit violence" → when they say "it is justified under self-defense" you do so with the design that it is likely to provoke or encourage threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of violence. Again, this is, in itself a criminal act.

(SUPPLEMENTAL)

I think your Posting #6891 (just as an example) is a case where you are advocating that it is lawful to commit acts of violence under the color of law (self-defense).

You are wrong, simply wrong, and you know it. Further, you know that the Gaza Border violence is instigated by a "foreign terrorist organization" as designated by over 30 countries just in the European Union alone; not to mention the UK, the US, Canada, and Australia.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

Read - mere presence of Jews is aggression.
Why isn't the presence of Arab settlers an aggression?

 

[Mindful]

Dear Rep Ilhan Omar: Just Admit You Are a Blatant Anti-Semite Who Hates Israel and the Jews

BY RABBI MICHAEL BARCLAY


Someone needs to teach Minnesota Representative Omar the meaning of Irony.

This freshman representative who spent so much time castigating Israel and repeatedly making anti-Semitic remarks had the audacity this past week to claim that she is fighting against anti-Semitism. This same woman who continually tries to perpetuate the anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews being money hungry and “all about the Benjamins” has now said (with a straight face) that she cannot fight against Islamophobia if she is “not willing to fight against anti-Semitism.”

In speaking of Israel, she has previously said, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.” She has repeatedly tried to perpetuate the stereotype that Jews have “dual loyalty," and ignorantly tried to portray AIPAC as a Republican funding machine even though it is bipartisan, definitely not Republican-focused, and is dedicated to disseminating accurate information about Israel (the PAC's initials stand for Public Affairs Committee not Political Action Committee). She proudly spoke at a rally sponsored by Black Lives Matter, an organization that supports the BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction against Israel). BDS is arguably the most anti-Semitic coordinated practice since the Nazis and the Holocaust, and she is personally a passionate supporter of it and BLM. And yet, in her speech at this BLM rally, she claimed that President Trump and his allies are “creating monsters” that are “terrorizing the Jewish community.” Ms. Omar, as a Jewish leader, let me explain that it is you, BLM, and the supporters of the BDS movement who are the monsters terrorizing our people.

Dear Rep. Ilhan Omar: Just Admit You Are a Blatant Anti-Semite Who Hates Israel and the Jews

 

[Mindful]

^You, Ms. Omar are the blatant anti-Semite who continually demonstrates your hatred for Jews and Israel through your words and actions. The hypocrisy of the recent speech you gave in front of a group that has also established itself as anti-Semitic is astounding and filled with hubris, and an incredibly poor reflection on Congress and your constituents.

Maybe irony isn’t the most accurate word. What you have, in the worst of ways, is chutzpah.

 

[Sixties Fan]

2018 saw record number of tourists visit Israel from Muslim countries

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, get real.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Settlements are established under therterms mutually agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo is an illegal agreement.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, get real.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Settlements are established under therterms mutually agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo is an illegal agreement.

“..... because I say so.”

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, teach me something!

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, get real.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Settlements are established under the terms mutually agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo is an illegal agreement.

(QUESTION)

What in the Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980) says that it is illegal?

(COMMENT)

The • (Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements • and the • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip • were internationally hailed as a spectacular set of achievements for the day. In fact, I think it was the first and only Nobel Award given to an Arab Palestinian; and one of only six laureates for the entire Arab League → to date.

The entire agreement process was observed by The United States of America and The Russian Federation. And the Nobel Committee scrutinized the entire arrangement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, teach me something!

RE: Boycott Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, get real.

Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active parts of the settler colonial project. They are all part of the aggression.

(COMMENT)

The Israeli Settlements are established under the terms mutually agreed upon between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo is an illegal agreement.

(QUESTION)

What in the Vienna Convention Law Treaties (1969 - EIF:1980) says that it is illegal?

(COMMENT)

The • (Oslo I 1993) Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements • and the • (Oslo II 1995) Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip • were internationally hailed as a spectacular set of achievements for the day. In fact, I think it was the first and only Nobel Award given to an Arab Palestinian; and one of only six laureates for the entire Arab League → to date.

The entire agreement process was observed by The United States of America and The Russian Federation. And the Nobel Committee scrutinized the entire arrangement.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oslo was signed behind the backs of the Palestinians without their knowledge or approval.

Agreements concluded between the occupying power and the local authorities cannot deprive the population of occupied territory of the protection afforded by international humanitarian law (GC IV, art. 47)

Occupation and international humanitarian law: questions and answers - ICRC​

There is a list of violations that are illegal with or without Oslo.