Civilians vs Combatents

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I think you made a mistake here.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers generally were concerned about the "civil" and "religious."

• Where (in 1922 International Law) were the "Human Rights define and binding?
• At the end of the Great War (WWI), what entity held the rights and title to the entire Middel East Region?

Rights are inherent. They are not handed out by people in power. If that was the case, nobody would have any.

The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights. They also say that these rights predate their resolutions.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the rights that were protected were those as stipulated in the Mandate was explicit to cite.

TWO POINTS:

Surely, the Arab Palestinian did not have inherent rights under the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Sultan was the absolute ruler of the territory and the dominion at large. Nor was there such a thing as "inherent rights" within the Empires of China and Japan. When did man and the human community at large accept the idea of "inherent rights?" The notion of inherent rights has a specific starting point for each culture that adopted the notion. Even today, the notion that there are inherent rights is at variance to Sharia and governments within the Islamic community. Does the Grand Ayatollah (Supreme Leader of Iran and Muslim Cleric) have authority to circumvent "inherent rights." And does the Supreme Leader of North Korea have the powers inherent rights?

When did the Islamic World adopt the concept of "inherent rights?" Does the Arab League affirm that "inherent rights" are above that of Islamic Law?
​

Like I said before, the Arab Palestinian draw that term like a gun. The problem is, that they are effectively using a concept that they as Muslims, do not agree with. Clearly the Sunni and the Shi'ite do not perceive the other in the same light.

No, when the Arab Palestinian comes to accept that a "right" is not a handout, and that it confers no territory or authority, then they will start to understand what it means to "exercise a right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course that ducks the question.

It's actually comical how you rattle on with such whining about "inherent rights" when your Islamic terrorist Arab-Moslem heroes know no such concept.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I think you made a mistake here.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers generally were concerned about the "civil" and "religious."

• Where (in 1922 International Law) were the "Human Rights define and binding?
• At the end of the Great War (WWI), what entity held the rights and title to the entire Middel East Region?

Rights are inherent. They are not handed out by people in power. If that was the case, nobody would have any.

The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights. They also say that these rights predate their resolutions.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

NICE DUCK but wont work

Does this mean I have the right to kill all muslims because sometime in the future that may be an actual right ?

You cant retrospectively use international laws unless you have a cut of point, and that point is agreed to be the date of implementation. Rights exist at a point in time and did not exist before they were granted by a higher authority with the power to enforce them. That is the deciding factor, not your plaintive crying that the rights were violated before they had them.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this ?
They got them when a higher authority granted them of course, and in the case of UN resolutions these are not enforceable being simple recommendations and need to be ratified by an even higher authority before becoming international laws.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh come now.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I think you made a mistake here.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers generally were concerned about the "civil" and "religious."

• Where (in 1922 International Law) were the "Human Rights define and binding?
• At the end of the Great War (WWI), what entity held the rights and title to the entire Middel East Region?

Rights are inherent. They are not handed out by people in power. If that was the case, nobody would have any.

The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights. They also say that these rights predate their resolutions.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

(COMMENT)

In 1922, the rights that were protected were those as stipulated in the Mandate was explicit to cite.

TWO POINTS:

Surely, the Arab Palestinian did not have inherent rights under the Sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Sultan was the absolute ruler of the territory and the dominion at large. Nor was there such a thing as "inherent rights" within the Empires of China and Japan. When did man and the human community at large accept the idea of "inherent rights?" The notion of inherent rights has a specific starting point for each culture that adopted the notion. Even today, the notion that there are inherent rights is at variance to Sharia and governments within the Islamic community. Does the Grand Ayatollah (Supreme Leader of Iran and Muslim Cleric) have authority to circumvent "inherent rights." And does the Supreme Leader of North Korea have the powers inherent rights?

When did the Islamic World adopt the concept of "inherent rights?" Does the Arab League affirm that "inherent rights" are above that of Islamic Law?
​

Like I said before, the Arab Palestinian draw that term like a gun. The problem is, that they are effectively using a concept that they as Muslims, do not agree with. Clearly the Sunni and the Shi'ite do not perceive the other in the same light.

No, when the Arab Palestinian comes to accept that a "right" is not a handout, and that it confers no territory or authority, then they will start to understand what it means to "exercise a right."

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course that ducks the question.

No your dancing around and posting islamonazi talking points ducks the questions because you know they are 100% right.

 

[westwall]

This seems to me to be a dangerously immoral path to go down -- along the lines of "Well, of course you can't target civilians -- but Israelis/Jews aren't civilians."

What makes a civilian a civilian? It can't simply be that they are the "wrong" ethnicity living on the "wrong" side of an Armistice line.

​

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

The closest hospital is over a quarter of a mile away. the other hospital is over a mile away. That is not considered close proximity. I will grant you that in WWII it was. But no more. Unless you are firing indiscriminate rockets that is.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

No that is your claim in regards to the arab muslims. As we keep telling you the Jews had exactly the same rights as the arab muslims, just that they exercised them within the laws. It is your false claim every time you are shown that the arab muslims have done themselves no favours to say we give the Jews more rights. Well now I am calling you out on your claim, produce the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Prove we give the arab muslims less rights under the international laws of the time, and so give the Jews more rights.

Where have I ever mentioned "Arab Muslims?"

It is you who is always trying to insert religion into a colonial problem.

 

[Challenger]

Civilians or combatants?

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

The closest hospital is over a quarter of a mile away. the other hospital is over a mile away. That is not considered close proximity. I will grant you that in WWII it was. But no more. Unless you are firing indiscriminate rockets that is.

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it. Perhaps the US could give it PGKs to help level the playing fiield?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I think you made a mistake here.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Citizenship makes everyone equal.

Foreign colonial settlers are not Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The idea of the Arab Palestinian being superior to the Jewish Palestinian given citizenship under the same Citizenship Order, is called something else.

Stop whining and figure out a way to improve the Human Development of the Arab Palestinian people instead of attempting incite and ferment conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Nice duck.

BTW, the immigration policy was imposed on Palestine at the point of a gun. That was a violation of their rights.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers generally were concerned about the "civil" and "religious."

• Where (in 1922 International Law) were the "Human Rights define and binding?
• At the end of the Great War (WWI), what entity held the rights and title to the entire Middel East Region?

Rights are inherent. They are not handed out by people in power. If that was the case, nobody would have any.

The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights. They also say that these rights predate their resolutions.

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

NICE DUCK but wont work

Does this mean I have the right to kill all muslims because sometime in the future that may be an actual right ?

You cant retrospectively use international laws unless you have a cut of point, and that point is agreed to be the date of implementation. Rights exist at a point in time and did not exist before they were granted by a higher authority with the power to enforce them. That is the deciding factor, not your plaintive crying that the rights were violated before they had them.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this ?
They got them when a higher authority granted them of course, and in the case of UN resolutions these are not enforceable being simple recommendations and need to be ratified by an even higher authority before becoming international laws.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?​

Sure, no problem.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,


Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

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

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

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

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

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore. In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge at the center of the protracted theme since the time Hypatia of Alexandria faced religious zealots in the Agora of Alexandria.Just as Hypatia's death marked the beginning of the end for Alexandria as the center of scholastic achievement.

The Arab Palestinians have not made the difficult choices and key decisions that would have advanced their society and culture; and should be experiencing the consequences of those poor decisions.

On this subject who invited you to migrate to the USA ?

(COMMENT)

These flights of fancy, where the Arab Palestinians think that they are above the normal stages of progression that the great sovereignties like China, India, most of Africa and certainly Europe had experienced. The Arab Palestinians pull this term "rights" and the theory that the world owes them something special because they have these "rights."

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are so deep into the belief that these rights somehow are unique to them, and supercede that rights of all others, that they have special entitlements. Trying to lay some measure of logic to their position and debate the issues is simply out of the question.

Much of what the HoAP attempt to lay down as a basis for their convictions is much like trying to assign some deeper meaning to the Lyrics of "I am the Walrus." (1967)

I am the eggman,
.........................they are the eggmen
.......................................................I am the walrus,
goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo gooooooooooo jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
​

You just cannot get their from here! (That is --- not without some mind and conscious altering substance.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore. In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge, blah, blah, blah.​

Holy load of crap, Batman.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

• This argument is merely subterfuge that attempts to suggest that the territory under the mandate was already a states under Arab sovereignty; which it was not.​

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

No that is your claim in regards to the arab muslims. As we keep telling you the Jews had exactly the same rights as the arab muslims, just that they exercised them within the laws. It is your false claim every time you are shown that the arab muslims have done themselves no favours to say we give the Jews more rights. Well now I am calling you out on your claim, produce the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Prove we give the arab muslims less rights under the international laws of the time, and so give the Jews more rights.

Where have I ever mentioned "Arab Muslims?"

It is you who is always trying to insert religion into a colonial problem.

Nothing to do with religion just showing where the violence is coming from. It is not arab Christians or arab Jews that start the violence is it. But you constantly bring religion into the equation by claiming that the Jews have no right to exist in Israel

 

[Phoenall]

Someone, of course, is now going to post the predictable pictures of Palestinian children...as if somehow trying to justify designating children as legitimate targets.

That is seriously sick.

Blaming the parents for the actions of terrorists (not freedom fighters) who deliberately choose to target children is not much better. There is no excuse for targeting children.

I never said there was.

I responded to Shusha's question, "What makes a civilian a civilian?" In the case of Zionist Israel, a very large proportion of the population are military reservists or active IDF members. The photographs pose the question, are they legitimate targets and if so, are they using their unarmed fellow citizens as human shields, a charge often made against Palestinians? RoccoR will doubtless give us all the "legal definition" according to whatever convention applies, so I won't waste my time on that.

I deliberately avoided posting pictures of children carrying and/or playing with weapons as I agree that such pictures are no justification at all to target children.

The two pictures at the end, however pose another quandary; who would be responsible for the death and injury to the children depicted should a Palestinian mortar or rocket hit the artillery position (Gaza) or the tank (Golan Heights)? The shooter or the parents/soldiers who allowed the children to be there in a conflict zone the first place?

What matters in my mind...is intent. If the intent is to target and kill children, or if the intent is an indiscrimminate strike targeting civilian areas, regardless of where they are - are they suddenly not civilians?

As to who is responsible for civilians living in contested areas - that's tricky. IMO, until it's resolved and borders drawn, responsibility lies with the government controlling the territory and allowing civilians to live there. Likewise - who is responsible for civilian deaths when Gaza is struck? Is it the Israeli's? Or is it the government that allows rockets to be fired into Israeli civilian areas?

Who determines "intent"? The accusations of the victims or the declarations of the shooter him/herself?

Consider, the above photo is of IDF HQ (the prominent square building with the funny round tower sticking out of it. This is in central Tel Aviv and has two hospitals and a medical centre in close proximity.
The IDF HQ is beyond doubt a legitimate military target, but should Hamas avoid firing rockets at it, just in case they miss and hit the hospitals closeby?

The closest hospital is over a quarter of a mile away. the other hospital is over a mile away. That is not considered close proximity. I will grant you that in WWII it was. But no more. Unless you are firing indiscriminate rockets that is.

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it. Perhaps the US could give it PGKs to help level the playing fiield?

WHY ? what would that do apart from see gaza destroyed completely. The need is to rid them of all weapons so they cant kill Jews and get morons to support them when they complain about the retaliation. Even with more accurate weapons the betting is they would target children, and what would your view on that be ?

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore. In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge at the center of the protracted theme since the time Hypatia of Alexandria faced religious zealots in the Agora of Alexandria.Just as Hypatia's death marked the beginning of the end for Alexandria as the center of scholastic achievement.

The Arab Palestinians have not made the difficult choices and key decisions that would have advanced their society and culture; and should be experiencing the consequences of those poor decisions.

On this subject who invited you to migrate to the USA ?

(COMMENT)

These flights of fancy, where the Arab Palestinians think that they are above the normal stages of progression that the great sovereignties like China, India, most of Africa and certainly Europe had experienced. The Arab Palestinians pull this term "rights" and the theory that the world owes them something special because they have these "rights."

The Hostile Arab Palestinians are so deep into the belief that these rights somehow are unique to them, and supercede that rights of all others, that they have special entitlements. Trying to lay some measure of logic to their position and debate the issues is simply out of the question.

Much of what the HoAP attempt to lay down as a basis for their convictions is much like trying to assign some deeper meaning to the Lyrics of "I am the Walrus." (1967)

I am the eggman,
.........................they are the eggmen
.......................................................I am the walrus,
goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo goo g' joob goo goo g' joob
Goo gooooooooooo jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
Jooba jooba
​

You just cannot get their from here! (That is --- not without some mind and conscious altering substance.)

Most Respectfully,
R

Let's no be too hard on our friend P F Tinmore. In most cases he is acting out of misguided loyalties to the Hostiles that were belligerent obstructionist in the first decade of the 20th Century, and blossomed into one of the most terrible and longstanding anti-peace protagonist to emerge, blah, blah, blah.​

Holy load of crap, Batman.

NO 1000% fact and supported by evidence on this board. You believe anything that takes away the rights of the Jews and then try to say that the rights of the arab muslims have been taken away.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, the let's make it simple for you.

Of course that ducks the question.

(REFERENCE)

What are human rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
​

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 (never converted or adopted into law), has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.
​

THE QUESTION: At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

THE ANSWER: At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.

(COMMENT)

There is no right that is unique to the Palestinians. There is no right that the Palestinians have that the Jewish People do not. And there is no right that gives anything specific to any one people (including the Palestinians).

• The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights.
​

√ Point of clarification:
​

∆ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings; including Jews and Arab Palestinins.
∆ Jews and Arab Palestinians are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.
​

The standard list of rights (the long list) is a huge and chaotic list, most of which did not go into force (as a matter of law) until: 1976

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR)

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 3 January 1976,
[​

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(CCPR)

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976,
​

Having said this, it is relatively unimportant. RIGHTS DO NOT CONFER ANYTHING UPON A PEOPLE. There is embedded in the RIGHTS (A/HRC/RES/27/21) is the belief that no State (including the Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of any type of measure, including but not limited to economic or political measures, to coerce another State (including Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. YET, the Israeli People must defend against the underlying unilateral coercive measures presented by the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinians. The fact that the Jewish People have the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity under International Law does not prevent the HoAP from attempt to coercively subordinate and drive-out the Israeli people. Every day the Israelis are required to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures; defending their rights against the Jihadist activities of the HoAP.

You and the HoAP cannot use the issue of Palestinian RIGHTS to defend or justify you Jihadist and radicalized Islamic Activity to coerce Israel. The fact that the HoAP have "rights" does not give any special claim to the HoAP over the territory renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and transferred title and right to the Allied Power.

Finally, law is not retroactive. The 1976 "rights" do not apply to actions and decisions made in 1967 (a decade earlier).

(BIGGER ANSWER)

The rights of the Arab Palestinian were conferred upon them at the same time as the right of the Jewish People were conferred. And the rights of the HoAP do not include the right to interfere with the rights of the Jewish People to establish their National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

No, this is NOT CORRECT.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?

Sure, no problem.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,


Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

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

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

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

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

(COMMENT)

Neither of these Resolutions are binding. They have not entered into law.

These passages cite, in derivative fashion, the UN Charter by extrapolation. And if you cite the principle, you understand that the 1945 is about maintaining peace and security; and NOT supportive of the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Nor is it supportive of the Arab Palestinian that believe Jihad and armed resistance are the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian people, having declared themselves as hostile jihadist, cannot use, under the false color of law, these resolutions to infiltrate for the purposes of pursuing Jihad and armed struggle.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

​

You are going back to Israeli propaganda talking points. Palestinians have the right to sovereignty as UN resolutions have affirmed. The exercise of their right has been violated by occupation. That does not negate their rights.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that. But the Arab Palestinian right does not preempt the same right to self-determination that any other peoples have; including that of the Jewish People. The Arab Palestinians do not have a superior claim to that of the Jewish Citizens of the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

The Arab Palestinians rights cannot interfere with the Jewish rights.

If this case, the territorial dispute depends on significant facts that occurred, or a treaty concluded, nearly a century ago. The doctrine of inter-temporal law ["lex retro non agit" (law does not work backward)] has become well-established: “in such cases the situation in question must be appraised, and the treaty interpreted, in the light of the rules of international law as they existed at that time, and not as they exist today.”

The ArabPalestinians cannot exert the right of self-determination from the outside inward. That is to say, the people called Arab-Palestinians, who are physically resident outside the exclusive jurisdiction of Israel, cannot claim the right of self-determination to Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

Yes, the ArabPalestinians have the right to self-determination. No one has argued against that.​

Bullcrap, you always do. You always claim that colonial settlers have superior rights than the native population. Whenever I ask you to prove your point, you dance around the Issue.

No that is your claim in regards to the arab muslims. As we keep telling you the Jews had exactly the same rights as the arab muslims, just that they exercised them within the laws. It is your false claim every time you are shown that the arab muslims have done themselves no favours to say we give the Jews more rights. Well now I am calling you out on your claim, produce the evidence or admit that you are wrong. Prove we give the arab muslims less rights under the international laws of the time, and so give the Jews more rights.

Where have I ever mentioned "Arab Muslims?"

It is you who is always trying to insert religion into a colonial problem.

Nothing to do with religion just showing where the violence is coming from. It is not arab Christians or arab Jews that start the violence is it. But you constantly bring religion into the equation by claiming that the Jews have no right to exist in Israel

Do you have a link for that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, the let's make it simple for you.

Of course that ducks the question.

(REFERENCE)

What are human rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
​

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 (never converted or adopted into law), has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.
​

THE QUESTION: At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

THE ANSWER: At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.

(COMMENT)

There is no right that is unique to the Palestinians. There is no right that the Palestinians have that the Jewish People do not. And there is no right that gives anything specific to any one people (including the Palestinians).

• The UN says that the Palestinians have the standard list of rights.
​

√ Point of clarification:​

∆ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings; including Jews and Arab Palestinins.
∆ Jews and Arab Palestinians are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.​

The standard list of rights (the long list) is a huge and chaotic list, most of which did not go into force (as a matter of law) until: 1976

• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR)

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 3 January 1976,
[​

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(CCPR)

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976,
​

Having said this, it is relatively unimportant. RIGHTS DO NOT CONFER ANYTHING UPON A PEOPLE. There is embedded in the RIGHTS (A/HRC/RES/27/21) is the belief that no State (including the Arab Palestinians) may use or encourage the use of any type of measure, including but not limited to economic or political measures, to coerce another State (including Israel) in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights and to secure from it advantages of any kind. YET, the Israeli People must defend against the underlying unilateral coercive measures presented by the Arab League and the Hostile Arab Palestinians. The fact that the Jewish People have the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity under International Law does not prevent the HoAP from attempt to coercively subordinate and drive-out the Israeli people. Every day the Israelis are required to counteract the extraterritorial application or effects of unilateral coercive measures; defending their rights against the Jihadist activities of the HoAP.

You and the HoAP cannot use the issue of Palestinian RIGHTS to defend or justify you Jihadist and radicalized Islamic Activity to coerce Israel. The fact that the HoAP have "rights" does not give any special claim to the HoAP over the territory renounced by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic and transferred title and right to the Allied Power.

Finally, law is not retroactive. The 1976 "rights" do not apply to actions and decisions made in 1967 (a decade earlier).

(BIGGER ANSWER)

The rights of the Arab Palestinian were conferred upon them at the same time as the right of the Jewish People were conferred. And the rights of the HoAP do not include the right to interfere with the rights of the Jewish People to establish their National Home.

Most Respectfully,
R

THE QUESTION:​

At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

THE ANSWER: At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.​

The standard clunker in your argument is that a colonial project has more rights than the natives.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

No, this is NOT CORRECT.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?

Sure, no problem.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,


Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

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

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

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

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

(COMMENT)

Neither of these Resolutions are binding. They have not entered into law.

These passages cite, in derivative fashion, the UN Charter by extrapolation. And if you cite the principle, you understand that the 1945 is about maintaining peace and security; and NOT supportive of the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Nor is it supportive of the Arab Palestinian that believe Jihad and armed resistance are the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian people, having declared themselves as hostile jihadist, cannot use, under the false color of law, these resolutions to infiltrate for the purposes of pursuing Jihad and armed struggle.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​

The Palestinians have the right to make that decision. They have the right to territorial integrity. Nobody else has the right to hack up their country.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

P F Tinmore,

No, this is NOT CORRECT.

Now you make a far reaching claim that the UN say that the rights predate the date of the recommendation of them being rights, can we have a UN link to prove this?

Sure, no problem.

Guided
by the purposes and principles of the Charter,


Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

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

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

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

2. Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return;

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

(COMMENT)

Neither of these Resolutions are binding. They have not entered into law.

These passages cite, in derivative fashion, the UN Charter by extrapolation. And if you cite the principle, you understand that the 1945 is about maintaining peace and security; and NOT supportive of the Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. Nor is it supportive of the Arab Palestinian that believe Jihad and armed resistance are the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian people, having declared themselves as hostile jihadist, cannot use, under the false color of law, these resolutions to infiltrate for the purposes of pursuing Jihad and armed struggle.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​

The Palestinians have the right to make that decision. They have the right to territorial integrity. Nobody else has the right to hack up their country.

"Palestine" was never an independent country to begin with, and this was an exclusive, extraordinary case. Like Netanyahu said, "Jews in Israel can't be compared to Belgians in the Congo." (And, by the way, the Congo has been involved in a vicious civil war since the Belgians left.) The Jews gave the Bible to the world from that region, whether you call it Israel or Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, a misrepresentation of the facts. I think if you go back and look --- you'll find I said nothing of the kind.

√ Point of clarification:​

∆ Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings; including Jews and Arab Palestinians.
∆ Jews and Arab Palestinians are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.
​

​

(COMMENT)

I don't think you interpreted the context even remotely close.

THE QUESTION:
At what point in time and under what circumstances did the Palestinians get their rights if they did not have them from the get go?

THE ANSWER: At the same time that the Jewish People received their rights.​

​

The standard clunker in your argument is that a colonial project has more rights than the natives.

(COMMENT)

Actually, this seems to be only an interpretation you gather. Very few people argue that the rights are equal between the two groups.

As for the issue of "colonialism," I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power. Again, that is out of context and the encouraged immigration to the territory under the Mandate as if it were illegal, evil or otherwise improper.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

The problem I see with the Israel/Arab Muslim Palestine conflict is with the third aspect. The underlying issue is that the Arab Muslim Palestinians (particularly those in Gaza) utterly reject any Jewish sovereignty on any of the territory. Its a zero sum -- us or them -- game for them. Clearly, this can not be "addressed" by Israel as it demands the destruction of any sort of Jewish self-determination or sovereignty in the Jewish homeland...

No it doesn't. You can come to a power-sharing agreement. it worked well with deeply entrenched religious and ethnic hatreds in Northern Ireland (Scottish Protestant colonists against Catholic Irish natives). Hamas has said several times it would consider a long term truce; all it needs is for the Zionists to negotiate in good faith, something, they've never done in the past. The continuance of this conflict is to the advantage of the Zionists; while it goes on they can continue to steal land and disposess the natives.

 

[Challenger]

I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.

Really? The Mandate system was the workaround adopted by Britain and France to gain new "colonies" from the defeated Ottomans without them being called "colonies"; a diplomatic fig leaf that was required due to their previous declaration that they had not gone to war to obtain new territories for their respective empires.