Finally.........A Palestinian Contribution To Mankind

[Hossfly]

It seems that some ISIS terrorists are praising Hamas terrorists for developing a more efficient and faster way to kill more innocent civilians quicker than ever before.


.
As jihadists around the world expressed their joy over Thursday evening’s terror attack in southern France, one ISIS sympathizer hailed Palestinian terrorists for pioneering the use of vehicles to attack civilians, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) reported on Friday.

“Killing by ramming using civilian cars and trucks is an idea born from the Maqdisi [Palestinian] mind, which has an innovative nature of thinking up jihad tactics,” read a posting on a pro-ISIS forum online. “Yesterday they taught us [about] the explosive vest, and many plans for street fighting, and today they taught us this tactic. May Allah bless Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem, and may Allah bless all of the Levant…Oh Aqsa, we are coming.”

Vehicular terrorism has become a common method employed by Palestinian Jihadists over the past year. According to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since September 2015, 46 car ramming attacks have been carried out against Israelis, both injuring and killing scores of civilians and security personnel.


Palestinians Hailed for Developing ‘Innovative’ Car-Ramming Terror Tactic Used in Nice Attack

 

[Moonglow]

When death by vehicles in the USA occurs it's not just old men having a seizure..

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, et al,

"Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" Now there is a name of the past. And still a West Bank Palestinian that routinely inspires violence. in fact, he has been imprisoned several times, by the Jordanian Authorities for encouraging radical Sunni Jihadist militants into terrorist activity. And it was in one of these terms of incarceration that he met Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi (of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) fame and later AQI) and became his inspirational teacher.

As jihadists around the world expressed their joy over Thursday evening’s terror attack in southern France, one ISIS sympathizer hailed Palestinian terrorists for pioneering the use of vehicles to attack civilians, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) reported on Friday.

“Killing by ramming using civilian cars and trucks is an idea born from the Maqdisi [Palestinian] mind, which has an innovative nature of thinking up jihad tactics,” read a posting on a pro-ISIS forum online. “Yesterday they taught us [about] the explosive vest, and many plans for street fighting, and today they taught us this tactic. May Allah bless Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem, and may Allah bless all of the Levant…Oh Aqsa, we are coming.”

(COMMENT)

While Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi is long since dead (Killed in a USAF Air Strike in 2006), the organization of the evolved into DAESH [JTJ (1999–2004) --- QJBR Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Biladal-Rafidayn (2004–06) Mujahideen Shura Council (2006), Islamic State of Iraq (2006–13), DAESH State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–14)
and eventually - what we have come to know today as DAESH "Islamic State" (June 2014–present)]. While we don't think of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi as the father of DAESH, he was a top Radical Sunni Jihadist and Palestinian in the early years who's enlightenment was key to the evolutionary process that lead to the development of DAESH.

It was impossible to have foreseen the connection and impact that "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" would have on present day Radical Islamic Terrorist and Jihadist. Maybe the whole chain of events might have been altered if "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" early-on in the fight against terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

Hossfly, et al,

"Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" Now there is a name of the past. And still a West Bank Palestinian that routinely inspires violence. in fact, he has been imprisoned several times, by the Jordanian Authorities for encouraging radical Sunni Jihadist militants into terrorist activity. And it was in one of these terms of incarceration that he met Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi (of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) fame and later AQI) and became his inspirational teacher.

As jihadists around the world expressed their joy over Thursday evening’s terror attack in southern France, one ISIS sympathizer hailed Palestinian terrorists for pioneering the use of vehicles to attack civilians, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) reported on Friday.

“Killing by ramming using civilian cars and trucks is an idea born from the Maqdisi [Palestinian] mind, which has an innovative nature of thinking up jihad tactics,” read a posting on a pro-ISIS forum online. “Yesterday they taught us [about] the explosive vest, and many plans for street fighting, and today they taught us this tactic. May Allah bless Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem, and may Allah bless all of the Levant…Oh Aqsa, we are coming.”

(COMMENT)

While Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi is long since dead (Killed in a USAF Air Strike in 2006), the organization of the evolved into DAESH [JTJ (1999–2004) --- QJBR Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Biladal-Rafidayn (2004–06) Mujahideen Shura Council (2006), Islamic State of Iraq (2006–13), DAESH State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–14)
and eventually - what we have come to know today as DAESH "Islamic State" (June 2014–present)]. While we don't think of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi as the father of DAESH, he was a top Radical Sunni Jihadist and Palestinian in the early years who's enlightenment was key to the evolutionary process that lead to the development of DAESH.

It was impossible to have foreseen the connection and impact that "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" would have on present day Radical Islamic Terrorist and Jihadist. Maybe the whole chain of events might have been altered if "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" early-on in the fight against terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestinians will be Palestinians. Leave it to the Zionists in Israel to actually try to make peace with them. Shame on them.

 

[Roudy]

can we say 9-11 by Al Queda was inspired by the Palestinians, the first hijackers?

When plane hijackings were Palestinian terrorists' weapon of choice - Israel News

 

[MJB12741]

Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands. Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

 

[RoccoR]

MJB12741, et al,

A lot of people use this word: "Zionism;" but it seem to me that I cannot use is because I'm not sure what Zionism means in terms of the the 21st Century. In fact, I'm not sure that the meaning is universally understood.

• Is there one, and only one definition of Zionism?

∆ Is Zionism strictly religious?

§ Is there a left-wing/right-wing political Zionism?
§ Is there a spiritual Zionism?
§ Is there and ethical or moral Zionism?
​

One might ask if Zionism evolves with the real-world changes in the political situation? Does Zionism adapt? OR Does Zionism remain static? Is Zionism have a common understanding within the Jewish Population? Or is it the case that Zionism is understood differently between that population Outside the Middle East, regionally, and internally within Israel?

What is "THE" Zionist Plan today? What does that mean?

Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands. Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

There is no aspect of Zionist agenda that drives the diplomatic relationship between the Government of Israel (GOI) and the various uncoordinated aspects within the Government of Palestine. For that to be the case, then Zionism would have a "political" component to it with all the baggage associated with it (left wing - centrist - right-wing).

Zionism is classically understood as the movement of the Jewish people to reconstitute its national sovereignty in our historic homeland after 2,000 years of Diaspora life. There were many expressions of Zionism, from a utopian Socialist version to cultural Zionism to religious Zionism — and many other flavors mixed in.

Today, the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination in Israel — Zionism’s basic narrative — is under assault.
SOURCE: Zionism in the 21st Century Times of Israel 20 July, 2015

Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path. There is no reason to believe that the Arab Palestinian will abandon Hostile activity if the GOI. If Israel were to withdraw all activity under the GOI bace to the 1949 Armistice, that would allow the Arab League to amass fast moving forces within:

• 21 miles of Haifa
• Nine Miles of Netanya
• 11 Miles of Tel Aviv
• less than 22 Miles of Ashod
............∆ Additionally, this would bring several approach paths and climb corridors within Man-Portable Anti-Aircraft Weapons range.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

MJB12741, et al,

A lot of people use this word: "Zionism;" but it seem to me that I cannot use is because I'm not sure what Zionism means in terms of the the 21st Century. In fact, I'm not sure that the meaning is universally understood.

• Is there one, and only one definition of Zionism?

∆ Is Zionism strictly religious?

§ Is there a left-wing/right-wing political Zionism?
§ Is there a spiritual Zionism?
§ Is there and ethical or moral Zionism?
​

One might ask if Zionism evolves with the real-world changes in the political situation? Does Zionism adapt? OR Does Zionism remain static? Is Zionism have a common understanding within the Jewish Population? Or is it the case that Zionism is understood differently between that population Outside the Middle East, regionally, and internally within Israel?

What is "THE" Zionist Plan today? What does that mean?

Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands. Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

There is no aspect of Zionist agenda that drives the diplomatic relationship between the Government of Israel (GOI) and the various uncoordinated aspects within the Government of Palestine. For that to be the case, then Zionism would have a "political" component to it with all the baggage associated with it (left wing - centrist - right-wing).

Zionism is classically understood as the movement of the Jewish people to reconstitute its national sovereignty in our historic homeland after 2,000 years of Diaspora life. There were many expressions of Zionism, from a utopian Socialist version to cultural Zionism to religious Zionism — and many other flavors mixed in.

Today, the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination in Israel — Zionism’s basic narrative — is under assault.
SOURCE: Zionism in the 21st Century Times of Israel 20 July, 2015

Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path. There is no reason to believe that the Arab Palestinian will abandon Hostile activity if the GOI. If Israel were to withdraw all activity under the GOI bace to the 1949 Armistice, that would allow the Arab League to amass fast moving forces within:

• 21 miles of Haifa
• Nine Miles of Netanya
• 11 Miles of Tel Aviv
• less than 22 Miles of Ashod
............∆ Additionally, this would bring several approach paths and climb corridors within Man-Portable Anti-Aircraft Weapons range.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.​

Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

 

[Phoenall]

MJB12741, et al,

A lot of people use this word: "Zionism;" but it seem to me that I cannot use is because I'm not sure what Zionism means in terms of the the 21st Century. In fact, I'm not sure that the meaning is universally understood.

• Is there one, and only one definition of Zionism?

∆ Is Zionism strictly religious?

§ Is there a left-wing/right-wing political Zionism?
§ Is there a spiritual Zionism?
§ Is there and ethical or moral Zionism?
​

One might ask if Zionism evolves with the real-world changes in the political situation? Does Zionism adapt? OR Does Zionism remain static? Is Zionism have a common understanding within the Jewish Population? Or is it the case that Zionism is understood differently between that population Outside the Middle East, regionally, and internally within Israel?

What is "THE" Zionist Plan today? What does that mean?

Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands. Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

There is no aspect of Zionist agenda that drives the diplomatic relationship between the Government of Israel (GOI) and the various uncoordinated aspects within the Government of Palestine. For that to be the case, then Zionism would have a "political" component to it with all the baggage associated with it (left wing - centrist - right-wing).

Zionism is classically understood as the movement of the Jewish people to reconstitute its national sovereignty in our historic homeland after 2,000 years of Diaspora life. There were many expressions of Zionism, from a utopian Socialist version to cultural Zionism to religious Zionism — and many other flavors mixed in.

Today, the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination in Israel — Zionism’s basic narrative — is under assault.
SOURCE: Zionism in the 21st Century Times of Israel 20 July, 2015

Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

(COMMENT)

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path. There is no reason to believe that the Arab Palestinian will abandon Hostile activity if the GOI. If Israel were to withdraw all activity under the GOI bace to the 1949 Armistice, that would allow the Arab League to amass fast moving forces within:

• 21 miles of Haifa
• Nine Miles of Netanya
• 11 Miles of Tel Aviv
• less than 22 Miles of Ashod
............∆ Additionally, this would bring several approach paths and climb corridors within Man-Portable Anti-Aircraft Weapons range.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.​

Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

And you have a supported link to your claim other than a biased islamonazi one that seems to be your only sources these days ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's jettison the irrelevant here.

* Your observation: Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

COLONIZATION: is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EVENT: a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
DURATION: The time during which something continues.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
COLONY: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement (Oslo Accords), the establishment of Area C; Israel has Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

The establishment of a colony is not instantaneous. Whoever there is a threshold when, at one moment, there is no colony and the next moment, there is a recognizable colony. The moment that an area under the full or partial political control of another country, is an event.

This line of discussion is a diversion from the principle topic.

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.

Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

(COMMENT)

Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the Arab uprisings
01 April, 2013 By Khalid Mish’al

Hamas’ vision for the Palestinian question

9. We hold onto Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian sacred sites. We will not give them up, nor will we relinquish any part of them. They are our right, our essence, our history, our present and our future. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and is cherished in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims as a sign of their status and pride. ‘Israel’ has no legitimacy or right to Jerusalem at all, nor does it have any legitimacy or right to any part of Palestine. All Israeli actions in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, entrenchment of settlements, falsification of facts and attempts to usurp our history are unacceptable.

10. We stand firm on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals, and their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, whether in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967 – that is, to all of Palestine. We refuse to compromise on this right in any way. At the same time, we reject all land resettlement and alternative homeland projects.
​

A century ago, there was no Zionist Voice that exercised any authority over any project (Hebrew, Jewish, Zionist or other) in the former Ottoman/Turk territory for which the Title and Rights went to the Allied Powers. The allegation "that the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians" is actually the application of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee threat that:

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
​

Prior to 1948, their was no Jewish activity that could act upon any plan as suggested. The HoAP periodically raise such accusation in order to confuse the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's jettison the irrelevant here.

* Your observation: Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

COLONIZATION: is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EVENT: a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
DURATION: The time during which something continues.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
COLONY: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement (Oslo Accords), the establishment of Area C; Israel has Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

The establishment of a colony is not instantaneous. Whoever there is a threshold when, at one moment, there is no colony and the next moment, there is a recognizable colony. The moment that an area under the full or partial political control of another country, is an event.

This line of discussion is a diversion from the principle topic.

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.

Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

(COMMENT)

Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the Arab uprisings
01 April, 2013 By Khalid Mish’al

Hamas’ vision for the Palestinian question

9. We hold onto Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian sacred sites. We will not give them up, nor will we relinquish any part of them. They are our right, our essence, our history, our present and our future. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and is cherished in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims as a sign of their status and pride. ‘Israel’ has no legitimacy or right to Jerusalem at all, nor does it have any legitimacy or right to any part of Palestine. All Israeli actions in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, entrenchment of settlements, falsification of facts and attempts to usurp our history are unacceptable.

10. We stand firm on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals, and their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, whether in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967 – that is, to all of Palestine. We refuse to compromise on this right in any way. At the same time, we reject all land resettlement and alternative homeland projects.
​

A century ago, there was no Zionist Voice that exercised any authority over any project (Hebrew, Jewish, Zionist or other) in the former Ottoman/Turk territory for which the Title and Rights went to the Allied Powers. The allegation "that the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians" is actually the application of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee threat that:

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
​

Prior to 1948, their was no Jewish activity that could act upon any plan as suggested. The HoAP periodically raise such accusation in order to confuse the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Settler colonialism
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

 

[Shusha]

Settler colonialism is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region...

See, right away you have a problem with the definition you provide. The Jewish people are NOT a foreign people moving to a region.

(I know many people try to foreignize them: labeling them as Europeans or as only a religious cult and not a culture, inventing bizarre Khazar theories. But the Jewish people originated FROM that territory. Its their homeland. This is factually true.)

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I saw that. It is a problem using Wikipedia as the source source on a legal interpretation of intent. This is a continuation of the diversion.

Settler colonialism
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

The Lost Colony of Roanoke, as an example, was a colonial expedition, under the authority of the British Sovereign, to extend sovereignty under the rule of "Discovery." It is a form of "Occupation."

Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]
​

The entire body of the League of Nations (The Council) understood that there was no "Colonial" intent in the establishment of Mandate control. There was a direct intent, plainly understood, that the Allied Powers would be instrumental in the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and that the Allied Powers would facilitate immigration in favor of that decision; with the JNH to be a carve-out from holdings under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; --- from which the Allied Powers were successors to all Titles and Rights.

The constant attempt by the belligerent and Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) --- for the last century --- to undermine that intention and convince people otherwise, is merely an attempt to secure territory by force for which the occupied enemy inhabitants were refused to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage or to accomplish those set preparatory to independence in the same fashion as the Jewish Community and the Jordanian Community.

Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

I don't want to give a lecture on the displacement of Colonialism; but let's just say that when the UN Charter was written, colonialism was on its last leg. Again, none of this is important to the resolution of the dispute between the failing State of Palestine (the Arab State in A/RES/181) and the thriving State of Israel (the Jewish State in A/RES/181).

There is NO --- repeat "NO" --- territory for which the UN Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) applies. For all that has been written on this very issue, the HoAP constantly argue this ridiculous position that a Colonial Power introduced the immigration to expand colonial power. This was 100% wrong. While the British maintained a colonial power at that time, the intent had been to establish the JNH. In these contemporary times, there are no "Non-Self-Governing Territories" anywhere in the Middle East, including Palestine.

As for expanding into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, --- at the time the Israeli occupied these areas, NEITHER were under the sovereignty or control of the Palestinians. As explained previously (Posting #506 - Lest We Forget) at different times the relationships were different do to the shift in the political situation.

​

As for this allegation that: "there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true." This is simply twisting the facts. When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights." But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination (that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable). This vassilation between two concepts is a symptom of a politically psychopathic dissociative identity disorder (Palestinians will shift to any position or any identity as long as they can continue the jihad and insurgency).

Remember, Israel never occupied HoAP Territory. The failing State of Palestine materialized inside of "Dependent Territory" on Israel (later shifting to a more "Protectorate" type status), as an unchallenged right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights." But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination (that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable).​

It is a constant source of amazement and amusement to me that Team Palestine regularly insists on universal and inalienable rights for all peoples except the Jewish people.​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yeah, I saw that. It is a problem using Wikipedia as the source source on a legal interpretation of intent. This is a continuation of the diversion.

Settler colonialism
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

The Lost Colony of Roanoke, as an example, was a colonial expedition, under the authority of the British Sovereign, to extend sovereignty under the rule of "Discovery." It is a form of "Occupation."

Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17]
​

The entire body of the League of Nations (The Council) understood that there was no "Colonial" intent in the establishment of Mandate control. There was a direct intent, plainly understood, that the Allied Powers would be instrumental in the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and that the Allied Powers would facilitate immigration in favor of that decision; with the JNH to be a carve-out from holdings under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; --- from which the Allied Powers were successors to all Titles and Rights.

The constant attempt by the belligerent and Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) --- for the last century --- to undermine that intention and convince people otherwise, is merely an attempt to secure territory by force for which the occupied enemy inhabitants were refused to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage or to accomplish those set preparatory to independence in the same fashion as the Jewish Community and the Jordanian Community.

Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.

(COMMENT)

I don't want to give a lecture on the displacement of Colonialism; but let's just say that when the UN Charter was written, colonialism was on its last leg. Again, none of this is important to the resolution of the dispute between the failing State of Palestine (the Arab State in A/RES/181) and the thriving State of Israel (the Jewish State in A/RES/181).

There is NO --- repeat "NO" --- territory for which the UN Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960) applies. For all that has been written on this very issue, the HoAP constantly argue this ridiculous position that a Colonial Power introduced the immigration to expand colonial power. This was 100% wrong. While the British maintained a colonial power at that time, the intent had been to establish the JNH. In these contemporary times, there are no "Non-Self-Governing Territories" anywhere in the Middle East, including Palestine.

As for expanding into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, --- at the time the Israeli occupied these areas, NEITHER were under the sovereignty or control of the Palestinians. As explained previously (Posting #506 - Lest We Forget) at different times the relationships were different do to the shift in the political situation.

View attachment 84489
​

As for this allegation that: "there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true." This is simply twisting the facts. When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights." But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination (that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable). This vassilation between two concepts is a symptom of a politically psychopathic dissociative identity disorder (Palestinians will shift to any position or any identity as long as they can continue the jihad and insurgency).

Remember, Israel never occupied HoAP Territory. The failing State of Palestine materialized inside of "Dependent Territory" on Israel (later shifting to a more "Protectorate" type status), as an unchallenged right to self-determination.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Zionists said it was colonization. The British said it was colonization. They both had colonial offices to implement their plan. Historians say it is colonization. The Palestinians, and others, call it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism.

Here is what the UN says:

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

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

And you say it isn't.

 

[Shusha]

Here is what the UN says:

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

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

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...


All peoples, Tinmore. Including the Jewish people. Two state solution. So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?

 

[Hossfly]

Here is what the UN says:

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

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

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...


All peoples, Tinmore. Including the Jewish people. Two state solution. So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?

Because Tinmore wants a Jew free Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

Because Tinmore wants a Jew free Palestine.

Tinmore believes that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile are legitimate ways to remove a people's inalienable rights.


At least when its done to the Jews.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend Shusha has hit the nail on the head.

Here is what the UN says:

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

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

...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ...

All peoples, Tinmore. Including the Jewish people. Two state solution. So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?

(COMMENT)

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy. These were often characteristic of the 1982 A/RES/37/43, a Resolution that was overtaken by events. Remember, this Resolution came just 6 months after the brutal midday attack on 9 August 1982 took place in the Marais district, a largely Jewish neighborhood in the centre of Paris.
A French Magistrate issued international arrest warrants for three Palestinians on evidence linking them with carrying out the attack.

In 1982 there was no effort, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to exercise self-determination and establish a Palestinian State. In 1982, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories formerly under the foreign control of Jordan (Annexed the West Bank in 1950) and Egypt (dissolved the All Palestine Government and placed the Gaza Strip under an Military Governorship in 1959); respectively.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

(TWO STATE SOLUTION)

The Arab-Palestinians are playing a Three-Card Monte Game on their position on "Borders." Some express the opinion that everything West of the Jordan River, within the former Mandate boundaries is rightfully Palestinian. Some say that no power has the right to establish any kind of Jewish National Home (JNH) anywhere in Arab Lands. Then there are those that suggest that the Palestinians should pay no penalty for their initiation and subsequent loss of the 1948 War for Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack.

The 4 June 1967 border, which the Hostile Arab Palestinians defined as the 1949 Armistice Line (Armistice Agreements with Egypt and Jordan) is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine. This is wrong, in that, in connection with the PLO State of Palestine, the Armistice Lines had no relevance. The Armistice Lines had mean only to the parties to the conflict (Israel in conflict with Egypt and Jordan). The Armistice Lines cease to have any meaning on the establishment of the Peace Treaties between the Parties to the Conflict and a new set of International Boundaries were recognized. A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.

I had to laugh at PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat said: “if the members of international community are serious about the two-state solution they must, at the very least, recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders. This will send a clear message to Israel that in the 21st century, borders are determined by international law and not by settlement colonies that are built on land that was acquired by force.” But what is unspoken is that in 1948, it was the Arab League that initiated the act of g when they launched a coordinated attack across their borders and outside their jurisdiction. The rule on the acquisition by force applies to those countries which intimate military action to secure additional territory. It does not apply to a country which is attacked by the Arab League, which losses ground to the defender.

Finally, these "settlements" were established in negotiated and Palestinians Approved Area "C;" full Israeli civil and security control. Nothing prohibits the building of settlements on the basis of an approved negated accord; and not undergone the agreed upon dispute resolution process. And the HoAP have consistently declined to open the dispute resolution process. The HoAP have absolutely no legitimate basis to complain.

Article XV: Resolution of disputes:
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements:

The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team
(in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"),
representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict,
recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just,
lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process.
​

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an arbitration committee.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's jettison the irrelevant here.

* Your observation: Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

COLONIZATION: is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EVENT: a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
DURATION: The time during which something continues.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
COLONY: a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press

§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement (Oslo Accords), the establishment of Area C; Israel has Full Israeli civil and security control.
​

The establishment of a colony is not instantaneous. Whoever there is a threshold when, at one moment, there is no colony and the next moment, there is a recognizable colony. The moment that an area under the full or partial political control of another country, is an event.

This line of discussion is a diversion from the principle topic.

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.

Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.

(COMMENT)

Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the Arab uprisings
01 April, 2013 By Khalid Mish’al

Hamas’ vision for the Palestinian question

9. We hold onto Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian sacred sites. We will not give them up, nor will we relinquish any part of them. They are our right, our essence, our history, our present and our future. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and is cherished in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims as a sign of their status and pride. ‘Israel’ has no legitimacy or right to Jerusalem at all, nor does it have any legitimacy or right to any part of Palestine. All Israeli actions in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, entrenchment of settlements, falsification of facts and attempts to usurp our history are unacceptable.

10. We stand firm on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals, and their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, whether in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967 – that is, to all of Palestine. We refuse to compromise on this right in any way. At the same time, we reject all land resettlement and alternative homeland projects.
​

A century ago, there was no Zionist Voice that exercised any authority over any project (Hebrew, Jewish, Zionist or other) in the former Ottoman/Turk territory for which the Title and Rights went to the Allied Powers. The allegation "that the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians" is actually the application of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee threat that:

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.
​

Prior to 1948, their was no Jewish activity that could act upon any plan as suggested. The HoAP periodically raise such accusation in order to confuse the issue.

Most Respectfully,
R

Settler colonialism
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (e.g., the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".




WHAT "IMPERIAL POWER" WAS BEHIND THE COLONISATION THEN, AS THE ONLY ONE MENTIONED IS THE ARAB MUSLIM ONE THAT FLOODED THE AREA WITH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN THE HOPE THEY COULD OUTNUMBER THE INDIGENOUS AND LEGAL MIGRANTS.

ONCE AGAIN YOU DENY THE JEWS THEIR LEGAL, CIVIL, RELIGIOUS AND HUMAN RIGHTS BECAUSE OF YOUR RACISM AND HATRED OF THE JEWS

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.