BREAKING: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...

[Hollie]

You want links to acts of islamic terrorism by the Arabs-Moslems masquerading as "Pal'istanians"?

Home Page|PMW

So you link to an Israeli propaganda site.

Your usual sidestep. Never any refutation of the facts, just more silly cartoons.

They lied on the first page. Why should I continue?

Link?

Home Page|PMW

Well done. You refuted your own attempt at argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

So you link to an Israeli propaganda site.

Your usual sidestep. Never any refutation of the facts, just more silly cartoons.

They lied on the first page. Why should I continue?

Link?

Home Page|PMW

Well done. You refuted your own attempt at argument.

No I didn't. They lied.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME..
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty. There are principles of the sovereign equality; meaning the exercise of power by a governing body over itself, without any interference (AKA a self-governing body). And there is the right to self-determination. There is no right for a people without any authority or power to declare sovereignty.

In 1967, what Palestinian country was the rightful sovereign of that territory?

The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty inside their territory.

(COMMENT)

I think you are a bit confused. Sovereignty means:

• Supreme political authority and a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within its territory.
  
• It is capable of regulating movements across its borders.
  
• It can make its foreign policy choices freely.
• It is recognized by other governments as an independent entity entitled to freedom from external intervention.

SOURCE: Richard N. Haass, Director, Policy Planning Staff, DOS
Remarks to the School of Foreign Service and the Mortara Center for International Studies, Georgetown University Washington, DC January 14, 2003
​

Now, you have to compare that to the reality you see in the West Bank. Ask yourself:

• Do the Arab Palestinians have the Supreme Political Authority? If so, where?
• Do the Arab Palestinians have the capacity to control their borders? If so, where?
• Do the Arab Palestinians have the capacity to make foreign policy choices?
• Do the Arab Palestinians actually have recognition?​

Now you might be tempted to answers some of these questions in the affirmative; but, I caution you to examine the implications.

At no time in the last century, have the Arab Palestinians actually experienced all of these qualities and attributes over any territory; simultaneously.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

Your usual sidestep. Never any refutation of the facts, just more silly cartoons.

They lied on the first page. Why should I continue?

Link?

Home Page|PMW

Well done. You refuted your own attempt at argument.

No I didn't. They lied.

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME..
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Sovereignty. There are principles of the sovereign equality; meaning the exercise of power by a governing body over itself, without any interference (AKA a self-governing body). And there is the right to self-determination. There is no right for a people without any authority or power to declare sovereignty.

In 1967, what Palestinian country was the rightful sovereign of that territory?

The Palestinians have the right to sovereignty inside their territory.

(COMMENT)

I think you are a bit confused. Sovereignty means:

• Supreme political authority and a monopoly over the legitimate use of force within its territory.
  
• It is capable of regulating movements across its borders.
  
• It can make its foreign policy choices freely.
• It is recognized by other governments as an independent entity entitled to freedom from external intervention.

SOURCE: Richard N. Haass, Director, Policy Planning Staff, DOS
Remarks to the School of Foreign Service and the Mortara Center for International Studies, Georgetown University Washington, DC January 14, 2003
​

Now, you have to compare that to the reality you see in the West Bank. Ask yourself:

• Do the Arab Palestinians have the Supreme Political Authority? If so, where?
• Do the Arab Palestinians have the capacity to control their borders? If so, where?
• Do the Arab Palestinians have the capacity to make foreign policy choices?
• Do the Arab Palestinians actually have recognition?​

Now you might be tempted to answers some of these questions in the affirmative; but, I caution you to examine the implications.

At no time in the last century, have the Arab Palestinians actually experienced all of these qualities and attributes over any territory; simultaneously.

Most Respectfully,
R

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,

2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;

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

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The UN concludes that Israel has established an APARTHEID REGIME...
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, you cannot use UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/37/43 3 December 1982 for two reasons:

• The Resolution is not Binding; thus not International Law.

√ In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter.​

• The Resolution conflicts with the established International Law (Geneva Convention IV and Hague Regulation 1907).

• Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949
• Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
• Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
• Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, 2005

• [URL='https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=4D47F92DF3966A7EC12563CD002D6788&action=openDocument']Hague Convention (IV) on War on Land and its Annexed Regulations, 1907[/URL]​

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960).

The UN Committee 24 does not consider Palestine (or any part thereof) to be a NSGT.
See Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories

If member nations want to endorse armed struggle and conflict (political terminology for international armed conflict/Non-International Armed Conflicts) as defied under Common Article 3.

In the final analysis, it makes no difference what the General Assembly may endorce, IAC/NIAC, the outcome will be the same. And the original intention of the UN in the application of "Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States." The Arab Palestinians may be turning hostile again; having a taste for blood and martyrdom.

EXCERPTS:

Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered.

States shall accordingly seek early and just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their choice. In seeking such a settlement the parties shall agree upon such peaceful means as may be appropriate to the circumstances and nature of the dispute.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands including mercenaries, for incursion into the territory of another State.

Every State has the duty to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or acquiescing in organized activities within its territory directed towards the commission of such acts, when the acts referred to in the present paragraph involve a threat or use of force.
​

Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against a colonial occupation force is not just recognized under international law but specifically endorsed.

In relevant part, the resolution not only went on to affirm the right "to self-determination, freedom and independence [...] of peoples forcibly deprived of that right,[...] particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination" but noted the right of the occupied to "struggle ... and to seek and receive support" in that effort.

This imprecision was to change on December 3, 1982. At that time UNGA resolution 37/43 removed any doubt or debate over the lawful entitlement of occupied people to resist occupying forces by any and all lawful means. The resolution reaffirmed "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle".

Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle

(COMMENT)

There is no question, whether or not Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has international support, that the first and preferred choice of the Arab Palestinian is armed conflict.

The denial to participate and purposeful obstruction → in settlement of their international disputes by the Arab Palestinians appears to be a strategy of patience.

Each time the Arab Palestinians uses "37/43 Right to Armed Struggle" as justification, ids further proof that conflict is the intention --- not peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The UN Committee 24 does not consider Palestine (or any part thereof) to be a NSGT.
See Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories

Interesting because when Britain passed its Mandate to the UNPC Palestine was called a legal entity that was not self governing. And 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 says:

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;​

The information I provided match recorded history and the facts on the ground. Can you provide anything showing why Palestine was not included in the NSGT list when clearly it is.

 

[Shusha]

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;​

One could certainly make the philosophical (and legal) argument that "all peoples" includes the Jewish (Palestinian) people, who were under foreign (Arab) domination.

The question leaves open whether it is possible for the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians to be jointly and inclusively free from foreign domination or if they must be separately free from each other.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

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;​

One could certainly make the philosophical (and legal) argument that "all peoples" includes the Jewish (Palestinian) people, who were under foreign (Arab) domination.

The question leaves open whether it is possible for the Jewish Palestinians and the Arab Palestinians to be jointly and inclusively free from foreign domination or if they must be separately free from each other.​

So, the foreign settlers were under native domination?

You are a hoot.

 

[Shusha]

So, the foreign settlers were under native domination?

You are a hoot.

Your approach only works if you deny the inalienable rights of some people to self-determination.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Are the inalienable rights of the Jewish people denied because they are Jews or because they were successfully removed from their ancestral territory?

Come on, why don't you answer that question?

 

[P F Tinmore]

So, the foreign settlers were under native domination?

You are a hoot.

Your approach only works if you deny the inalienable rights of some people to self-determination.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Are the inalienable rights of the Jewish people denied because they are Jews or because they were successfully removed from their ancestral territory?

Come on, why don't you answer that question?

You keep trying to deflect from the point. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that any Christian from anyplace in the world can go there, throw people out of their home, and start carrying in furniture?

 

[rylah]

So, the foreign settlers were under native domination?

You are a hoot.

Your approach only works if you deny the inalienable rights of some people to self-determination.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Are the inalienable rights of the Jewish people denied because they are Jews or because they were successfully removed from their ancestral territory?

Come on, why don't you answer that question?

You keep trying to deflect from the point. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that any Christian from anyplace in the world can go there, throw people out of their home, and start carrying in furniture?

Didn't they try it a couple times already?
Judea and Galilee are the birthplaces of that small Jewish sect.
And still that DOESN'T give the Arabs a right to demand a Juderhein Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

You keep trying to deflect from the point. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that any Christian from anyplace in the world can go there, throw people out of their home, and start carrying in furniture?

Right. So the answer to my question is that it specifically the Jewish people who have no rights.

And your justification for it is because the Jewish people aren't really a people,

Which, of course, defies any objective definition of the idea. Frankly, it is MUCH easier to objectively deny the Palestinian people as a people and therefore deny them rights to not only any land in Israel, but any land in the Mandate for Palestine. They are really just Syrians, after all. And should go back home.



** please not I am not supporting this, just making a point

 

[Billo_Really]

Right. So the answer to my question is that it specifically the Jewish people who have no rights.

And your justification for it is because the Jewish people aren't really a people,

Which, of course, defies any objective definition of the idea. Frankly, it is MUCH easier to objectively deny the Palestinian people as a people and therefore deny them rights to not only any land in Israel, but any land in the Mandate for Palestine. They are really just Syrians, after all. And should go back home.

The cost of "Milky" is driving Jews out of Israel.

 

[Hollie]

So, the foreign settlers were under native domination?

You are a hoot.

Your approach only works if you deny the inalienable rights of some people to self-determination.

Still waiting for you to answer the question. Are the inalienable rights of the Jewish people denied because they are Jews or because they were successfully removed from their ancestral territory?

Come on, why don't you answer that question?

You keep trying to deflect from the point. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that any Christian from anyplace in the world can go there, throw people out of their home, and start carrying in furniture?

That's what the Islamist colonists did. The colonists / invaders you euphemistically call the "indigenous Islamists".

 

[Shusha]

You keep trying to deflect from the point. Palestine is the birthplace of Christianity. Does that mean that any Christian from anyplace in the world can go there, throw people out of their home, and start carrying in furniture?

It does pose an interesting question. Since religion does intersect with ethnicity, in that all ethnicities tend to have a religious component, what differentiates a religion from an ethnicity with a religious component? (I would argue that the specific condition is the requirement for conversion as part of the religious tenets. Any religious faith which intends to convert other peoples (other ethnicities) and replace their ethnic religion with the converting religion, and actively seeks to do so by expansionism, invasion and imperialism, is, by definition, not an ethnicity. And no, that is not an invitation to claim that Judaism is a "converting" religion -- its not, its clearly not).

But more particularly, how does one define, morally and legally, a "people" within the context of the inalienable right to self-determination? The definition in international law is not clearly defined. The idea that you can reject a people from being a people, based on international law and some sort of objective definition of a "people" is not supportable.

The Arab Palestinian people have been assigned that designation in international legal documents. So have the Jewish people. So the denial of the Jewish people's designation appears contrived by you, and others.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Right. So the answer to my question is that it specifically the Jewish people who have no rights.

No it is your assertion that the Jews have exclusive rights.

 

[Shusha]

No it is your assertion that the Jews have exclusive rights.

Wow. You certainly flipped that on its head.

So, to be absolutely clear here, now you are saying that the Jewish people ARE, in fact, a people and DO have rights to self-determination. Yes? Equivalent to the Palestinian people.

The Jewish people and the Palestinian people have rights to self-determination? Answer yes or no. Its a simple question. (My answer is yes).

The next question is whether or not the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination independently of each other? Yes or no? I think this is the thrust of your "exclusive" argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No it is your assertion that the Jews have exclusive rights.

Wow. You certainly flipped that on its head.

So, to be absolutely clear here, now you are saying that the Jewish people ARE, in fact, a people and DO have rights to self-determination. Yes? Equivalent to the Palestinian people.

The Jewish people and the Palestinian people have rights to self-determination? Answer yes or no. Its a simple question. (My answer is yes).

The next question is whether or not the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination independently of each other? Yes or no? I think this is the thrust of your "exclusive" argument.

Equivalent to the Palestinian people.

Do you believe that throwing people out of their homes and stealing their land is an equivalent right?

 

[Hollie]

No it is your assertion that the Jews have exclusive rights.

Wow. You certainly flipped that on its head.

So, to be absolutely clear here, now you are saying that the Jewish people ARE, in fact, a people and DO have rights to self-determination. Yes? Equivalent to the Palestinian people.

The Jewish people and the Palestinian people have rights to self-determination? Answer yes or no. Its a simple question. (My answer is yes).

The next question is whether or not the Jewish people and the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination independently of each other? Yes or no? I think this is the thrust of your "exclusive" argument.

Equivalent to the Palestinian people.

Do you believe that throwing people out of their homes and stealing their land is an equivalent right?

Indeed, why do you pray at the altar of Islamic fascists.


The Avalon Project : Hamas Covenant 1988

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).