Boycott Israel

[Phoenall]

No it is you that ducks the answers that show Israel acquired their lands legally by following the rules and international law. Show one example of Israel having acquired thier land illegally and not in compliance with international law of the time. This means no using international laws of December 1967 for what happened in July 1967

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All I can say is that you have to first understand the conditions at the time the Non-Binding Resolution was written, AND the actual components of the Resolution.

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​

You always duck the Issue of Palestine's territorial integrity.

(OBSERVATION)

It reaffirms the "inalienable right" of:

•• the Namibian people,
•• the Palestinian people and
•• all peoples under foreign and colonial domination
​

In 1982, what were the conditions:

The 7th Arab League Summit affirmed (1974 --- two years after the attack, by the Palestinian group Black September, during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich,):

•• the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
•• the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.
•• Arab states undertake to defend Palestinian national unity
•• Arab states not to interfere in the internal affairs of Palestinian action.
•• The PLO exercise of its responsibility at the national and international levels within the framework of Arab commitment;
•• The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to return to their homeland;
​

In 1982, the situation on the ground was much different.

•• the Israelis "occupied" the territory formerly under the administration of the Egyptian Military Governor known as the Gaza Strip.
•• the Israelis "occupied" the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom known as the West Bank.
​

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians have no special rights, especially as it pertains to self-determination and to return to their homeland. It was the Allied Powers (having all rights and title) that recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.

So, in the international context, the respect for the principle of "equal rights" and "self-determination" of peoples (that would be including the Jewish People with the historical connection). "All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

And once again, I have to remind you that neither the "Mandate" or the "Occupation" represent a Colonial Power to extend their rule over a Non-Self-Governing Territories for the purposes of any exploitation. Neither the Jewish Agency or the follow-on Jewish State of Israel ---- act on behalf of a Colonial Power at any time since its establishment.

The non-Binding Resolution, rather long, makes very few demands and makes only one decision.

• 30. Decides to consider this item again at its thirty-eighth session on the basis of the reports that Governments, United Nations agencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations have been requested to submit concerning the strengthening of assistance to colonial territories and peoples.

• 14. Again demands the immediate application of the mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, imposed under Security Council resolution 418 (1977), by all countries, particularly by those countries that maintain military and nuclear co-operation with the racist Pretoria regime and continue to supply related material to that regime;

• 16. Demands the immediate implementation of General Assembly resolution ES-8/2 on Namibia;

• 24. Demands the immediate and unconditional release of all persons detained or imprisoned as a result of their struggle for self-determination and independence, full respect for their fundamental individual rights and the observance of article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under which no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;

• 26. Demands the immediate release of children detained in Namibian and South African prisons;
​

There is absolutely nothing in this UN Resolution that demands anything of Israel or decides anything pertaining to Israel.

All this really shows is that the Arab Palestinian was unable to establish anything meaningful on the matter of the Middle East Conflict between 1974 and the 1982.

Most Respectfully,
R

What you say would only be true if Israel legally acquired the land it sits on.

That is a question that you consistently duck.

There's no reason to accept that the land Israel sits on was not acquired legally.

There's no reason to accept that the Arab-Moslem squatters acquired the land legally. That the issue you consistently duck.

Not so. The Palestinians acquired Palestine by treaty.

What treaty. and who signed for the palestinians to acquire this land ? Not one treaty names palestine as a nation prior to 1988

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I kind-of thought this would be the comeback.

ARTICLE 16.
Lausanne Treaty: Part I
SECTION I. ---- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

And the parties had a non annexation policy. They held the territories in trust for the people. The people who became citizens under article 30.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 30 is in SECTION II - NATIONALITY.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

Article 30 talks about people, not territory. (Section I is about territory and not people. Section II is about people (nationality) and not territory.) Article 30 say absolutely nothing about the where the territory is transferred; by whom, to whom, or for whom. All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes. It does not suggest in any fashion that the there is some legacy of territory. It say nothing about territorial trusts or the territory being held in trusts or mandates. In fact, the issue of "trusts" and "mandates" is not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; the words are found nowhere in the Treaty. It is the Allied Powers in Article 16 that determines "the future of these territories" (concerned parties to the treaty).

I've seen pro-Palestinians pull this Article 30 out like a pulling a Rabbit out of the Hat. But like all magic, it is the art of misdirection.

Most Respectfully,
R

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.​

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory. You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I kind-of thought this would be the comeback.

ARTICLE 16.
Lausanne Treaty: Part I
SECTION I. ---- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

And the parties had a non annexation policy. They held the territories in trust for the people. The people who became citizens under article 30.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 30 is in SECTION II - NATIONALITY.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

Article 30 talks about people, not territory. (Section I is about territory and not people. Section II is about people (nationality) and not territory.) Article 30 say absolutely nothing about the where the territory is transferred; by whom, to whom, or for whom. All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes. It does not suggest in any fashion that the there is some legacy of territory. It say nothing about territorial trusts or the territory being held in trusts or mandates. In fact, the issue of "trusts" and "mandates" is not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; the words are found nowhere in the Treaty. It is the Allied Powers in Article 16 that determines "the future of these territories" (concerned parties to the treaty).

I've seen pro-Palestinians pull this Article 30 out like a pulling a Rabbit out of the Hat. But like all magic, it is the art of misdirection.

Most Respectfully,
R

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.​

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory. You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

Indeed. You then agree that Israeli sovereignty is established over their defined territory having achieved self-determination, unlike the Arabs-moslems.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

 

[Eloy]

This topic has been well and truly derailed.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

I think you have again demonstrated why your comments are so often dismissed as meaningless. It's reasonable to conclude that the rival Arab-Moslem factions in the West Bank and Gaza are quite some distance away from being able to manage the affairs of responsible governments. Let's make an honest assessment and understand in the case of Hamas, you are promoting a designated islamic terrorist franchise as a viable model of government. Their model for governing, the Hamas Charter, derives from a 7th century hate and war manual. On the other hand, you propose that the competing islamic terrorist franchise: Abu Madden's Fatah, is somehow able to manage civil affairs of government when Abu has done little more than concern himself with exploiting his UN welfare fund. Why would the average Islamic terrorist dictator bother with elections or managing the affairs of government when he's paid by a dedicated welfare fraud to continue the functions he's paid to do?

What attributes do you believe Islamic terrorists possess that allow them to govern?

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

You are right --- derailed.

This topic has been well and truly derailed.

(COMMENT)

I think this video (found; MUST, Must, See, Boycott) ---

I have to express my admiration to those talented few that can produce these videos that are snazzy yet informative little package videos. That video said more and many times more elegantly, then anything I could write.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I kind-of thought this would be the comeback.

ARTICLE 16.
Lausanne Treaty: Part I
SECTION I. ---- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

And the parties had a non annexation policy. They held the territories in trust for the people. The people who became citizens under article 30.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 30 is in SECTION II - NATIONALITY.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

Article 30 talks about people, not territory. (Section I is about territory and not people. Section II is about people (nationality) and not territory.) Article 30 say absolutely nothing about the where the territory is transferred; by whom, to whom, or for whom. All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes. It does not suggest in any fashion that the there is some legacy of territory. It say nothing about territorial trusts or the territory being held in trusts or mandates. In fact, the issue of "trusts" and "mandates" is not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; the words are found nowhere in the Treaty. It is the Allied Powers in Article 16 that determines "the future of these territories" (concerned parties to the treaty).

I've seen pro-Palestinians pull this Article 30 out like a pulling a Rabbit out of the Hat. But like all magic, it is the art of misdirection.

Most Respectfully,
R

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.​

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory. You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

And you forget only those covered by the mandate of palestine are able to claim citizenship, the arab muslims refused to be governed by the mandate and so lost their ability to migrate legally there. They are now trying to get a mulligan or do over and are failing because of their stupidity over the last 100 years

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eloy, et al,

You are right --- derailed.

This topic has been well and truly derailed.

(COMMENT)

I think this video (found; MUST, Must, See, Boycott) ---

I have to express my admiration to those talented few that can produce these videos that are snazzy yet informative little package videos. That video said more and many times more elegantly, then anything I could write.

Most Respectfully,
R

The first thing he does is start off with deflection.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I kind-of thought this would be the comeback.

ARTICLE 16.
Lausanne Treaty: Part I
SECTION I. ---- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

And the parties had a non annexation policy. They held the territories in trust for the people. The people who became citizens under article 30.

(COMMENT)

ARTICLE 30 is in SECTION II - NATIONALITY.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
​

Article 30 talks about people, not territory. (Section I is about territory and not people. Section II is about people (nationality) and not territory.) Article 30 say absolutely nothing about the where the territory is transferred; by whom, to whom, or for whom. All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes. It does not suggest in any fashion that the there is some legacy of territory. It say nothing about territorial trusts or the territory being held in trusts or mandates. In fact, the issue of "trusts" and "mandates" is not even mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne; the words are found nowhere in the Treaty. It is the Allied Powers in Article 16 that determines "the future of these territories" (concerned parties to the treaty).

I've seen pro-Palestinians pull this Article 30 out like a pulling a Rabbit out of the Hat. But like all magic, it is the art of misdirection.

Most Respectfully,
R

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.​

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory. You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

And you forget only those covered by the mandate of palestine are able to claim citizenship, the arab muslims refused to be governed by the mandate and so lost their ability to migrate legally there. They are now trying to get a mulligan or do over and are failing because of their stupidity over the last 100 years

And you forget only those covered by the mandate of palestine are able to claim citizenship,​

Link?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

All it says is that the people become citizen wherever they reside, whatever that territory finally becomes.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

What "slime" would that be? You were able only to cut and paste some meaningless photo. You were unable to address or refute a single point. You make the mistake of taking personally, practical assessments of Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

What "slime" would that be? You were able only to cut and paste some meaningless photo. You were unable to address or refute a single point. You make the mistake of taking personally, practical assessments of Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

How can you refute slime?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

Indeed, and the citizens are sovereign over their defined territory.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

You seem to think that the citizens should be subject to foreign power.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

What "slime" would that be? You were able only to cut and paste some meaningless photo. You were unable to address or refute a single point. You make the mistake of taking personally, practical assessments of Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

So you think that being under the gun of world superpowers is incompetence?

 

[Hollie]

Oh, my. Could someone "up" the prescription for the BDS'ers anti-Jooooo hating meds?


Huge Success for Israeli Startups and High-Tech Companies in First Investment Conference in China

Huge Success for Israeli Startups and high-tech companies in first Investment Conference in China


A long line of Chinese investors trailed at the entrance of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Shanghai to meet the Israeli startup entrepreneurs attending the GoforIsrael, initiated by Catalyst Fund and Cukierman Investment House. The entrepreneurs themselves were surprised at the huge interest.

Chinese investors’ enthusiasm for Israeli technology companies remains at its peak. More than 2800 participants at two conferences – in Shanghai and Wuhan – where the GoforIsrael Conferences were held.

The Israeli Investment Conference was organized for the first time in 15 years outside the borders of Israel. Instead of bringing Chinese investors to Tel Aviv, they led a group of over 100 Israeli Startups and Israeli high tech companies to China.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

What "slime" would that be? You were able only to cut and paste some meaningless photo. You were unable to address or refute a single point. You make the mistake of taking personally, practical assessments of Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

So you think that being under the gun of world superpowers is incompetence?

I think your conspiracy theories are a poor substitute for accepting accountability.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I don't understand how you come about these interpretations.

(OBSERVATIONS)

This rant of yours is only partly correct.

•• Saudi Arabia is a Kingdom and a stable and legal government. In the Saudi Kingdom the King is holds the sovereignty, not the people.
•• The Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocratic Republic. In Iran, the Supreme Leader holds the sovereignty in the person of the Grand Ayatollah; not the people.
•• The Kingdom of Morocco is a parliamentary constitutional monarchy. In Morocco the sovereignty is managed by the Parliament in the name of the people.
​

Unlike your misguided understanding of sovereignty, there is more than one correct answer.

(COMMENT)

No, I don't think I said that at all. That is a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what has been said here. The fact that the Arab Palestinians believe that, suggest that they are not quite ready for sovereignty and independence. However, for political reasons under coercion of terrorist targeting, many UN Member Nations believe that the 1988/2012 Palestinian State should be granted to avoid spreading the terrorism further; even if it means another failed Arab Regional State.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another slime the Palestinians post!

How come whenever the truth is posted you come out with a stupid reply rather than accept that you are wrong ?

Slime proves anything?

What "slime" would that be? You were able only to cut and paste some meaningless photo. You were unable to address or refute a single point. You make the mistake of taking personally, practical assessments of Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude.

How can you refute slime?

Nice dodge™

Your retreat to an alternate reality of denial and deflection is a poor substitute for accepting accountability.

Almost 7 decades of excuses for Arab-Moslem incompetence and ineptitude in the slogan the plight of the poor, oppressed Pal'istanians™

A welfare fraud program managed by an exclusive UN agency dedicated to the maintenance of an invented people with an invented "nationality".

Oh, such "oppression".