Boycott Israel

[Sixties Fan]

Like many “Palestinian” Arabs Bassam Eid has for a while questioned the logic behind boycotting Israel. After all, most of the economy in the “Palestinian” areas is rooted in commerce between Israelis and “Palestinians.” If there is a boycott of those “settlements” then “Palestinians” will inevitably suffer.

The BDS movement, while posing as a social justice movement acts not in the interest of local people in the Land of Israel, but rather has a sole aim of destroying the Jewish State through economic strangulation.

(full article online)

What has BDS done for the "Palestinians?" - Israel Unwired

 

[Sixties Fan]

Ancient Roots Israel 2020 was meant to be a conference where people from all over Israel could hear herbalists speak in English. The organizers had high expectations for the event. It was to be a meeting of people from all walks of life who share a common interest in herbal wisdom. Instead, anyone who expressed an interest in participating or attending was attacked, abused, and bullied by scary BDS people.

You hear about it and you think, “For goodness sakes! This was supposed to be about herbs. About people coming together to share knowledge!”


But that is the reality of our world today. Create something nice or say anything positive in relation to the one, tiny Jewish state, and the BDS activists will descend on you like vultures. Did you want to perform in Israel, or sell Israeli products? Rest assured that you will be bullied without mercy and without end, until you change your mind and stay home or buy a local product, instead. Arrange an event as harmless and inoffensive as a conference on herbalism? It makes no difference: if it is in Israel, it is a target.

(full article online)

Betina Thorball to BDS: Herbalists Have a Right to Professional Neutrality (Judean Rose) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Eugene Kontorovich, testifying before Congress this week in the hearing “Confronting the Rise in Anti-Semitic Domestic Terrorism”, submitted his statement that included a legal argument that BDS is discriminatory against Jews that I had never heard before.

It makes no difference that these calls to boycott are aimed at Israel, rather than at Jews per se. Israel is the largest Jewish community in the world and is home to the plurality—and soon the majority—of the world’s Jews. Refusals to deal that target Israel alone and not any other country offer a clear proxy for engaging in anti-Semitism under the cloak of political legitimacy. Partial boycotts are boycotts. Furthermore, discrimination need not be 100% congruent with the targeted class to be discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws make it clear that the use of proxies for race, sexual orientation, and so forth can be discriminatory. His footnote points to Pacific Shores Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach

(full article online)

A legal argument that BDS is effectively discrimination against Jews ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[MaryL]

Why boycott Israel? What exactly does Israel produce commercially we could either support OR boycott? Tourism? Not that I am nocking Israel, but not the first place I would go to...Why boycott little ol' poor Israel unless it is yet another thing Liberals virtue signal ...Well, go to hell with that sentiment.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Monthly vigil against HSBC bank collaboration with the Israeli army and to call for the British government to stop supplying arms to Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Berlin - Germany demonstrations against the #BalfourDeclaration which enabled for the creation of #Israel on the #Palestinians homeland,

 

[P F Tinmore]

House Anti-BDS Resolution Reveals the Power and Limits of the Israeli Lobby

 

[P F Tinmore]

Omar: BDS of Israel Will Lead to a Peace Process

 

[RoccoR]

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

Well, let's make a couple of points clear here.

House Anti-BDS Resolution Reveals the Power and Limits of the Israeli Lobby

Omar: BDS of Israel Will Lead to a Peace Process

(COMMENT)

While one video opens with the historic claim that the Israeli Wall is inside the Historic Borders set in 1967, the fact is that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established. In fact, the terminology "State of Palestine" was not requested by the PLO to be used until 2012 → after the adoption of A/RES/67/19 • Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/DEC/2012).

In 1967, Israel did NOT establish effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem as an Occupied Palestinian Territory. That territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory. It did not change status until 31/Jul/1988 when Jordan abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem. The PLO did NOT declare independence until November 1988 undefined, and then it was over an undefined territory; without boundaries.

It is often said that the BDS Movement has no political opinion on the Solution to the Question of Palestine. One needs to understand that this claim is based on the ambiguous meaning of a political movement.

The distinction between policy and law was maintained well into the twentieth century. “Public policy” was employed in public discourse as a halo word for public opinion, as it is clearly the case in this pre–World War II European perspective:

The “unruly horse” of public policy … is but another name for the fundamental ethical, political and social principles which guide legal evolution… [T]he concept of public policy … exposes some, but by no means all, of the … ideological assumptions underlying the administration of the law.
​

SOURCE: W. Friedmann • Legal Theory, London, Stevens & Sons • 1944, pp 479

Politics and political policy is by its very nature a slippery animal. It is intended that way, to provide the maximum coverage and survivability for the politician. So, when the BDS Movement claims the objective to end international support for "Israel's oppression of Palestinians" and "pressure Israel to comply" with international law; it is not misconstrued to be politics. It does not say that it wants to support "justice for all" or insure that both the belligerents must comply with international law. So, even though it uses the same techniques and cloned arguments as any other political argument, it can simultaneously claim not to be engaged in politics or have a political position.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Well, let's make a couple of points clear here.

House Anti-BDS Resolution Reveals the Power and Limits of the Israeli Lobby

Omar: BDS of Israel Will Lead to a Peace Process

(COMMENT)

While one video opens with the historic claim that the Israeli Wall is inside the Historic Borders set in 1967, the fact is that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established. In fact, the terminology "State of Palestine" was not requested by the PLO to be used until 2012 → after the adoption of A/RES/67/19 • Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/DEC/2012).

In 1967, Israel did NOT establish effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem as an Occupied Palestinian Territory. That territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory. It did not change status until 31/Jul/1988 when Jordan abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem. The PLO did NOT declare independence until November 1988 undefined, and then it was over an undefined territory; without boundaries.

It is often said that the BDS Movement has no political opinion on the Solution to the Question of Palestine. One needs to understand that this claim is based on the ambiguous meaning of a political movement.

The distinction between policy and law was maintained well into the twentieth century. “Public policy” was employed in public discourse as a halo word for public opinion, as it is clearly the case in this pre–World War II European perspective:

The “unruly horse” of public policy … is but another name for the fundamental ethical, political and social principles which guide legal evolution… [T]he concept of public policy … exposes some, but by no means all, of the … ideological assumptions underlying the administration of the law.
​

SOURCE: W. Friedmann • Legal Theory, London, Stevens & Sons • 1944, pp 479

Politics and political policy is by its very nature a slippery animal. It is intended that way, to provide the maximum coverage and survivability for the politician. So, when the BDS Movement claims the objective to end international support for "Israel's oppression of Palestinians" and "pressure Israel to comply" with international law; it is not misconstrued to be politics. It does not say that it wants to support "justice for all" or insure that both the belligerents must comply with international law. So, even though it uses the same techniques and cloned arguments as any other political argument, it can simultaneously claim not to be engaged in politics or have a political position.


Most Respectfully,
R

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Well, let's make a couple of points clear here.

House Anti-BDS Resolution Reveals the Power and Limits of the Israeli Lobby

Omar: BDS of Israel Will Lead to a Peace Process

(COMMENT)

While one video opens with the historic claim that the Israeli Wall is inside the Historic Borders set in 1967, the fact is that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established. In fact, the terminology "State of Palestine" was not requested by the PLO to be used until 2012 → after the adoption of A/RES/67/19 • Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/DEC/2012).

In 1967, Israel did NOT establish effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem as an Occupied Palestinian Territory. That territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory. It did not change status until 31/Jul/1988 when Jordan abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem. The PLO did NOT declare independence until November 1988 undefined, and then it was over an undefined territory; without boundaries.

It is often said that the BDS Movement has no political opinion on the Solution to the Question of Palestine. One needs to understand that this claim is based on the ambiguous meaning of a political movement.

The distinction between policy and law was maintained well into the twentieth century. “Public policy” was employed in public discourse as a halo word for public opinion, as it is clearly the case in this pre–World War II European perspective:

The “unruly horse” of public policy … is but another name for the fundamental ethical, political and social principles which guide legal evolution… [T]he concept of public policy … exposes some, but by no means all, of the … ideological assumptions underlying the administration of the law.
​

SOURCE: W. Friedmann • Legal Theory, London, Stevens & Sons • 1944, pp 479

Politics and political policy is by its very nature a slippery animal. It is intended that way, to provide the maximum coverage and survivability for the politician. So, when the BDS Movement claims the objective to end international support for "Israel's oppression of Palestinians" and "pressure Israel to comply" with international law; it is not misconstrued to be politics. It does not say that it wants to support "justice for all" or insure that both the belligerents must comply with international law. So, even though it uses the same techniques and cloned arguments as any other political argument, it can simultaneously claim not to be engaged in politics or have a political position.


Most Respectfully,
R

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

You are the first one who should advocate for partition, for your own sake. One state for all that territory would only be Israel. I have no objection to that, but I think it would upset you.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

Well, let's make a couple of points clear here.

House Anti-BDS Resolution Reveals the Power and Limits of the Israeli Lobby

Omar: BDS of Israel Will Lead to a Peace Process

(COMMENT)

While one video opens with the historic claim that the Israeli Wall is inside the Historic Borders set in 1967, the fact is that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established. In fact, the terminology "State of Palestine" was not requested by the PLO to be used until 2012 → after the adoption of A/RES/67/19 • Status of Palestine in the United Nations (4/DEC/2012).

In 1967, Israel did NOT establish effective control over the West Bank and Jerusalem as an Occupied Palestinian Territory. That territory was sovereign Jordanian Territory. It did not change status until 31/Jul/1988 when Jordan abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem. The PLO did NOT declare independence until November 1988 undefined, and then it was over an undefined territory; without boundaries.

It is often said that the BDS Movement has no political opinion on the Solution to the Question of Palestine. One needs to understand that this claim is based on the ambiguous meaning of a political movement.

The distinction between policy and law was maintained well into the twentieth century. “Public policy” was employed in public discourse as a halo word for public opinion, as it is clearly the case in this pre–World War II European perspective:

The “unruly horse” of public policy … is but another name for the fundamental ethical, political and social principles which guide legal evolution… [T]he concept of public policy … exposes some, but by no means all, of the … ideological assumptions underlying the administration of the law.
​

SOURCE: W. Friedmann • Legal Theory, London, Stevens & Sons • 1944, pp 479

Politics and political policy is by its very nature a slippery animal. It is intended that way, to provide the maximum coverage and survivability for the politician. So, when the BDS Movement claims the objective to end international support for "Israel's oppression of Palestinians" and "pressure Israel to comply" with international law; it is not misconstrued to be politics. It does not say that it wants to support "justice for all" or insure that both the belligerents must comply with international law. So, even though it uses the same techniques and cloned arguments as any other political argument, it can simultaneously claim not to be engaged in politics or have a political position.


Most Respectfully,
R

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

You are the first one who should advocate for partition, for your own sake. One state for all that territory would only be Israel. I have no objection to that, but I think it would upset you.

Even now, Israel is on the way to annexing all of the West Bank, and they can thank you for your help in this matter.

 

[RoccoR]

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

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

(COMMENT)

You keep repeating that, but it simply is NOT true. And there is a question as to whether or not it is true today. There was no State of Palestine at all. There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner.

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

(COMMENT)

Well! Interesting that you should take that position...

There is (without question) the State of Israel. It meets all four criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

However, there is a question as to when and under what boundaries the State of Palestine exists and holds.

There is, by Palestinian agreement, Areas "A" • "B" • "C" → Gaza Strip, sovereign Israeli Jerusalem, and a non-Israeli Jerusalem. And by agreement, Area "A" is the only Area, in which full civil and security controls are administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Arab Palestinians do NOT claim the control of any borders.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) of the Islamic Resistance (HAMAS) claim that the Gaza Strip is under siege. They HoAP HAMAS has called on outside foreign influences to make sure that the Occupation Authorities “commit to the accord.” The HoAP HAMAS also wants the outside foreign influences to assist the Great Marche of Return, and break the border siege and regain our rights from the Occupation Force.”

They cannot have it both ways. Either they are Occupied or they are NOT Occupied. Either all member nations have Boundaries that ARE defendable - or - NO nation can have sovereign borders - and NO nation can defend their border against intruders.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those anti-reality statements. There are several sets of partitions throughout the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate. At the very least there are:

◈ Israel → Sovereign Israeli control.
◈ Area "A" → Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
◈ Area "B" → Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
◈ Area "C" → Full Israeli civil and security control.
◈ Gaza Strip → HoAP Administration.​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

(COMMENT)

You keep repeating that, but it simply is NOT true. And there is a question as to whether or not it is true today. There was no State of Palestine at all. There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner.

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

(COMMENT)

Well! Interesting that you should take that position...

There is (without question) the State of Israel. It meets all four criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

However, there is a question as to when and under what boundaries the State of Palestine exists and holds.

There is, by Palestinian agreement, Areas "A" • "B" • "C" → Gaza Strip, sovereign Israeli Jerusalem, and a non-Israeli Jerusalem. And by agreement, Area "A" is the only Area, in which full civil and security controls are administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Arab Palestinians do NOT claim the control of any borders.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) of the Islamic Resistance (HAMAS) claim that the Gaza Strip is under siege. They HoAP HAMAS has called on outside foreign influences to make sure that the Occupation Authorities “commit to the accord.” The HoAP HAMAS also wants the outside foreign influences to assist the Great Marche of Return, and break the border siege and regain our rights from the Occupation Force.”

They cannot have it both ways. Either they are Occupied or they are NOT Occupied. Either all member nations have Boundaries that ARE defendable - or - NO nation can have sovereign borders - and NO nation can defend their border against intruders.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those anti-reality statements. There are several sets of partitions throughout the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate. At the very least there are:

◈ Israel → Sovereign Israeli control.
◈ Area "A" → Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
◈ Area "B" → Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
◈ Area "C" → Full Israeli civil and security control.
◈ Gaza Strip → HoAP Administration.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

How about refuting anything in my post?

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

 

[Hollie]

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

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

(COMMENT)

You keep repeating that, but it simply is NOT true. And there is a question as to whether or not it is true today. There was no State of Palestine at all. There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner.

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

(COMMENT)

Well! Interesting that you should take that position...

There is (without question) the State of Israel. It meets all four criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

However, there is a question as to when and under what boundaries the State of Palestine exists and holds.

There is, by Palestinian agreement, Areas "A" • "B" • "C" → Gaza Strip, sovereign Israeli Jerusalem, and a non-Israeli Jerusalem. And by agreement, Area "A" is the only Area, in which full civil and security controls are administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Arab Palestinians do NOT claim the control of any borders.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) of the Islamic Resistance (HAMAS) claim that the Gaza Strip is under siege. They HoAP HAMAS has called on outside foreign influences to make sure that the Occupation Authorities “commit to the accord.” The HoAP HAMAS also wants the outside foreign influences to assist the Great Marche of Return, and break the border siege and regain our rights from the Occupation Force.”

They cannot have it both ways. Either they are Occupied or they are NOT Occupied. Either all member nations have Boundaries that ARE defendable - or - NO nation can have sovereign borders - and NO nation can defend their border against intruders.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those anti-reality statements. There are several sets of partitions throughout the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate. At the very least there are:

◈ Israel → Sovereign Israeli control.
◈ Area "A" → Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
◈ Area "B" → Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
◈ Area "C" → Full Israeli civil and security control.
◈ Gaza Strip → HoAP Administration.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

How about refuting anything in my post?

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

I can't' recall any other poster who so often spams threads with the same cut and paste spam slogans.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

(COMMENT)

You keep repeating that, but it simply is NOT true. And there is a question as to whether or not it is true today. There was no State of Palestine at all. There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner.

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

(COMMENT)

Well! Interesting that you should take that position...

There is (without question) the State of Israel. It meets all four criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

However, there is a question as to when and under what boundaries the State of Palestine exists and holds.

There is, by Palestinian agreement, Areas "A" • "B" • "C" → Gaza Strip, sovereign Israeli Jerusalem, and a non-Israeli Jerusalem. And by agreement, Area "A" is the only Area, in which full civil and security controls are administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Arab Palestinians do NOT claim the control of any borders.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) of the Islamic Resistance (HAMAS) claim that the Gaza Strip is under siege. They HoAP HAMAS has called on outside foreign influences to make sure that the Occupation Authorities “commit to the accord.” The HoAP HAMAS also wants the outside foreign influences to assist the Great Marche of Return, and break the border siege and regain our rights from the Occupation Force.”

They cannot have it both ways. Either they are Occupied or they are NOT Occupied. Either all member nations have Boundaries that ARE defendable - or - NO nation can have sovereign borders - and NO nation can defend their border against intruders.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those anti-reality statements. There are several sets of partitions throughout the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate. At the very least there are:

◈ Israel → Sovereign Israeli control.
◈ Area "A" → Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
◈ Area "B" → Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
◈ Area "C" → Full Israeli civil and security control.
◈ Gaza Strip → HoAP Administration.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

How about refuting anything in my post?

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

You respond to Rocco's very long, researched and thought-out post with a flippant and untrue comment. You are not living in a world of reality. Ultimately, it is ppl like you who are giving the rightist Israelis exactly what they want in the end. When you post memes or videos of "Jews for Peace and Justice" (excluding the small Neturei Karta sect), do you really think they are advocating for turning all of Israel into Palestine? Of course not. They want to see 2 states with equal rights for all. But your extremist views will only result in all of Eretz Yisrael coming under Israeli control, and for that rylah and others like him should thank you! So please keep on being totally one-sided and portraying all Israelis as monsters, which is untrue, of course. In the end, you will help us reach our goal.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You are pulling one of those blind arguments by → "assertion" that you pull quite frequently.

Holy obfuscation, Batman!
How about refuting anything in my post?

(COMMENT)

You pretend that someone does not refute your posting, when in fact each key point was answered directly. This is a demonstration of being Blind to Answer or Comment. Each point was marked by a "specific" comment-in-response.

You are exhibiting the symptoms of someone who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the historical evidence to the "contrary." The facts, as I have presented them, dispute or refute your claim.

You exhibit "denialism" is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

√ You periodically reply using this "Israeli Talking Point" gimmick; as if a topic that invites discussion or argument (a "Talking Point") of any kind is invalid. (One can only wonder just where you went to school.)

√ I have provided independent (of Israel) documentation (Memorandum "A") that defined the territory as a "legal entity;" and that as of 25 February 1948 "Palestine" was a "legal entity" and "not a sovereign state."

legal entity. (18c) A body, other than a natural person, that can function legally, sue or be sued, and make decisions through agents.• A typical example is a corporation. (Black's Law Dictionary)

See Hall, A Treatise on International Law, pp. 82--83. See also Oppenheim, International Law, p. 116. ‘For every State that is not already but wants to be, a member, recognition is therefore necessary. A State is and becomes an International Person through recognition, only and exclusively.’ (SOURCE: Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law. pp 75)
​

Remember that the original claim was: → "Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?" As previously stated as a comment-in-response, "There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner."

Documentation has been rendered. In support of the documentation is the 1924 Treaty wherein, Turkey relinquished the entirety of the territory.

You just cannot get any more real than that..


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

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

the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at that time, had not established any boundaries for any country they established.

Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?

(COMMENT)

You keep repeating that, but it simply is NOT true. And there is a question as to whether or not it is true today. There was no State of Palestine at all. There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner.

Many are still banging on about the two state solution. The two state solution has been on the table since 1937. Eighty years later and they still can't get it to happen. Some say that the two state solution is dead. Indeed it was stillborn.

(COMMENT)

Well! Interesting that you should take that position...

There is (without question) the State of Israel. It meets all four criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Convention.

However, there is a question as to when and under what boundaries the State of Palestine exists and holds.

There is, by Palestinian agreement, Areas "A" • "B" • "C" → Gaza Strip, sovereign Israeli Jerusalem, and a non-Israeli Jerusalem. And by agreement, Area "A" is the only Area, in which full civil and security controls are administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Arab Palestinians do NOT claim the control of any borders.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) of the Islamic Resistance (HAMAS) claim that the Gaza Strip is under siege. They HoAP HAMAS has called on outside foreign influences to make sure that the Occupation Authorities “commit to the accord.” The HoAP HAMAS also wants the outside foreign influences to assist the Great Marche of Return, and break the border siege and regain our rights from the Occupation Force.”

They cannot have it both ways. Either they are Occupied or they are NOT Occupied. Either all member nations have Boundaries that ARE defendable - or - NO nation can have sovereign borders - and NO nation can defend their border against intruders.

Palestine has never been partitioned and there is no legal requirement to do so.

(COMMENT)

This is another one of those anti-reality statements. There are several sets of partitions throughout the territory, formerly under the administration of the Mandate. At the very least there are:

◈ Israel → Sovereign Israeli control.
◈ Area "A" → Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
◈ Area "B" → Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
◈ Area "C" → Full Israeli civil and security control.
◈ Gaza Strip → HoAP Administration.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy obfuscation, Batman!

How about refuting anything in my post?

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

You respond to Rocco's very long, researched and thought-out post with a flippant and untrue comment. You are not living in a world of reality. Ultimately, it is ppl like you who are giving the rightist Israelis exactly what they want in the end. When you post memes or videos of "Jews for Peace and Justice" (excluding the small Neturei Karta sect), do you really think they are advocating for turning all of Israel into Palestine? Of course not. They want to see 2 states with equal rights for all. But your extremist views will only result in all of Eretz Yisrael coming under Israeli control, and for that rylah and others like him should thank you! So please keep on being totally one-sided and portraying all Israelis as monsters, which is untrue, of course. In the end, you will help us reach our goal.

I just read an interesting comment on BDS in an Israeli forum, I'll paraphrase.

"Look what the BDS is doing, they're forcing Israel to realize it will never be treated like any other nation,
and to rethink the naive idea that enlightenment's dream of equality will allow Israel to be 'as all nations'.
It signals Israel that only when we get in touch with the root of our identity, will we reach the position where we can "join" and cooperate with others."

Ben-Gurion already said it, somewhat prophetically decades ago short and precise:
"It doesn't matter what the nations say, it matters what Israel does".

Hashem makes that even the efforts of the wicked eventually turn against them, and strengthen Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

You are pulling one of those blind arguments by → "assertion" that you pull quite frequently.

Holy obfuscation, Batman!
How about refuting anything in my post?

(COMMENT)

You pretend that someone does not refute your posting, when in fact each key point was answered directly. This is a demonstration of being Blind to Answer or Comment. Each point was marked by a "specific" comment-in-response.

You are exhibiting the symptoms of someone who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the historical evidence to the "contrary." The facts, as I have presented them, dispute or refute your claim.

You exhibit "denialism" is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

√ You periodically reply using this "Israeli Talking Point" gimmick; as if a topic that invites discussion or argument (a "Talking Point") of any kind is invalid. (One can only wonder just where you went to school.)

√ I have provided independent (of Israel) documentation (Memorandum "A") that defined the territory as a "legal entity;" and that as of 25 February 1948 "Palestine" was a "legal entity" and "not a sovereign state."

legal entity. (18c) A body, other than a natural person, that can function legally, sue or be sued, and make decisions through agents.• A typical example is a corporation. (Black's Law Dictionary)

See Hall, A Treatise on International Law, pp. 82--83. See also Oppenheim, International Law, p. 116. ‘For every State that is not already but wants to be, a member, recognition is therefore necessary. A State is and becomes an International Person through recognition, only and exclusively.’ (SOURCE: Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law. pp 75)
​

Remember that the original claim was: → "Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?" As previously stated as a comment-in-response, "There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner."

Documentation has been rendered. In support of the documentation is the 1924 Treaty wherein, Turkey relinquished the entirety of the territory.

You just cannot get any more real than that..


Most Respectfully,
R

Remember that the original claim was: → "Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?" As previously stated as a comment-in-response, "There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner."

That does not refute my premise. The British had no authority to change Palestine's international borders and they did not.

 

[rylah]

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

You are pulling one of those blind arguments by → "assertion" that you pull quite frequently.

Holy obfuscation, Batman!
How about refuting anything in my post?

(COMMENT)

You pretend that someone does not refute your posting, when in fact each key point was answered directly. This is a demonstration of being Blind to Answer or Comment. Each point was marked by a "specific" comment-in-response.

You are exhibiting the symptoms of someone who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the historical evidence to the "contrary." The facts, as I have presented them, dispute or refute your claim.

You exhibit "denialism" is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth.

There was no State of Palestine at all.

Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.

(COMMENT)

√ You periodically reply using this "Israeli Talking Point" gimmick; as if a topic that invites discussion or argument (a "Talking Point") of any kind is invalid. (One can only wonder just where you went to school.)

√ I have provided independent (of Israel) documentation (Memorandum "A") that defined the territory as a "legal entity;" and that as of 25 February 1948 "Palestine" was a "legal entity" and "not a sovereign state."

legal entity. (18c) A body, other than a natural person, that can function legally, sue or be sued, and make decisions through agents.• A typical example is a corporation. (Black's Law Dictionary)

See Hall, A Treatise on International Law, pp. 82--83. See also Oppenheim, International Law, p. 116. ‘For every State that is not already but wants to be, a member, recognition is therefore necessary. A State is and becomes an International Person through recognition, only and exclusively.’ (SOURCE: Colonialism in Nineteenth-Century International Law. pp 75)
​

Remember that the original claim was: → "Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?" As previously stated as a comment-in-response, "There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner."

Documentation has been rendered. In support of the documentation is the 1924 Treaty wherein, Turkey relinquished the entirety of the territory.

You just cannot get any more real than that..


Most Respectfully,
R

Remember that the original claim was: → "Why do the Palestinians have to define or redefine their borders. They have had undisputed, international borders since 1924?" As previously stated as a comment-in-response, "There was a legal entity called Palestine that was under the exclusive control by the British High Commissioner."

That does not refute my premise. The British had no authority to change Palestine's international borders and they did not.

Except that they did: