Civilians vs Combatents

[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.

"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.

"Palestine" was never an independent country to begin with,​

I know that this is the standard Israeli propaganda talking point but it is irrelevant. If you look at the resolutions it is the Palestinians who have the rights not Palestine. The status of Palestine has nothing to do with the rights of the Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.

So committing war crimes (firing indiscriminately into civilian areas) is acceptable if that's all you got? And this from the one who insists that Israel accurately pin point targets in Gaza so as never to harm a hair on a single civilian head. Double standards much?

 

[Shusha]

​

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.

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

 

[Shusha]

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.

So, Syria is a French colony?

 

[Shusha]

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.

Okay, let's assume this is true, and Hamas doesn't actually have a goal of the destruction of Israel and the reclamation of all of the territory to be under Arab Muslim rule. (Crazy idea, but let's go with it for now).

What, exactly, is there to negotiate with Gaza? What negotiations has Israel failed to make "in good faith" with Gaza? Israel unilaterally disengaged. Israel made the territory suitably Judenrien. There is a well-defined border. Israel has not interferred with the complete control of the government in Gaza to govern. What the heck does Gaza still WANT that has not already been unilaterally granted by Israel?

The right to keep attacking? THAT is not a "long term truce" or ceasefire or peace agreement. That is the continuation of the conflict.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again, this is nonsense.

(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?

Your own posts when you say that Israel is an illegal state and does not exist of course. Then that the Jews are not Palestinians so did not have the right to declare independence but the Egyptians did.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

EVIDENCE that this is so, as every time I see that the Jews and arab muslims have the same rights under law, and all that goes with those rights.


And one of those downfalls is the arab muslims do not have the right to violate any of the Jews rights

 

[Shusha]

If you look at the resolutions it is the Palestinians who have the rights not Palestine. The status of Palestine has nothing to do with the rights of the Palestinians.

ALL of the "Palestinians", Tinmore. Not just SOME of them.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Just where is their country as they have not defined it yet, and they cant claim any part of Israel as that would be against the Jews rights under international laws. All we have is the usual islamonazi mantra of from the river to the sea from north to south. Care to provide a 1988 map of this fantasy land area ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

LINK to show this as I only see the rights of the Jews are no different than the rights of the arab muslims at the time. You cant use international laws retrospectively

 

[Phoenall]

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.

And the clause that stops this being considered by any other than islamonazi's and neo Marxist morons is the one that gives the Palestinians the right to end the truce without warning when they feel they have amassed enough firepower and soldiers to win the war they will start. Then they will want another hudna to follow on from the last one.

It is a negotiated peace with no open ends that the Palestinians can use to their advantage, and the penalties for breach of the treaty to be laid out openly and honestly.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

Typical neo Marxist POV of the facts that has no basis in fact

 

[Phoenall]

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.

"Palestine" was never an independent country to begin with,​

I know that this is the standard Israeli propaganda talking point but it is irrelevant. If you look at the resolutions it is the Palestinians who have the rights not Palestine. The status of Palestine has nothing to do with the rights of the Palestinians.

And who are the Palestinians, and how would disallowing the Jews from declaring independence on 22% of Palestine be against the arab muslims rights when they have declared on 78% and made it Jew free. Is that right in your eyes to make 78% of Palestine another Jew free zone ?

 

[Phoenall]

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.

So committing war crimes (firing indiscriminately into civilian areas) is acceptable if that's all you got? And this from the one who insists that Israel accurately pin point targets in Gaza so as never to harm a hair on a single civilian head. Double standards much?

This is how Jew hatred clouds the mind and causes morons to enlist a two tier system of rules and laws. The Palestinians can fire at chidren because they are allowed to, but the Jews cant fire at military targets in case of collateral damage

 

[Phoenall]

​

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.

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

The problem is many international laws were enacted before these rights came into being so according to Tinny the treaties in existence make these rights null and void because they interfere with International law. Lets see how he reacts to his own link being used against him and see what his answers are.
But if international law of 1923 gives the Jews 22% of the area covered by the mandate of Palestine how can rights granted to everyone take it away from them in 2016. That must be a violation of the Jews rights to territorial integrity and self determination.

 

[RoccoR]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​

The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.

 

[Hollie]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​

The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.

King - Field Marshal General tinmore has spoken. The newly assigned leadership of the Arabs-Moslem terrorists occupying the disputed territories have succeeded the current thiefs-in-charge of the UN welfare fraud and there's a new Islamo-fraud management team in charge... Tinmore says so.

This soft coup should shape up to be the happy-fun Islamic terrorist blood bath that defined the Hamas vs. Fatah kill-fest. More Islamic terrorist players, more fun.

 

[Phoenall]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​

The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.

Is that why the Palestinians are demanding BDS is scrapped. I don't know where you drag your claims up from so how about a link proving your claims ?

 

[Challenger]

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.

So committing war crimes (firing indiscriminately into civilian areas) is acceptable if that's all you got? And this from the one who insists that Israel accurately pin point targets in Gaza so as never to harm a hair on a single civilian head. Double standards much?

Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?