Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel

[Hollie]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "One Single Cause." Different Key Personalities have differing perspectives. Just like those of us in this Discussion Group.

What Is It About Palestinian Accountability That So Irks Tlaib and Sarsour? (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This conflict is about colonialism not religion.

(COMMENT)

As much as you want it to be "colonialism," going that way is complaining about something which is NOT illegal.

As much as you want it to be a case of "Acquisition by Force," it is not.

.........View attachment 276584
Most Respectfully,
R

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What Is It About Palestinian Accountability That So Irks Tlaib and Sarsour? (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This conflict is about colonialism not religion.

You may have missed it during the last half-dozen times it was explained for you but let’s run through it again, shall we?

The term “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter. That bit of Islamo-goodness is chock full of appeals to Allah to assist in the slaughter of Jews and the Islamist re-colonization of lands they previously conquered and lost.

You will also notice that the Hamas charter refers to land that is now the State of Israel as an Islamist waqf. The term waqf has also been defined for you on numerous occasions.

It’s concerning that you don’t grasp these concepts even after they have been delineated for you on, you know, numerous occasions.

Ah, the Hamas lady posts again. Hamas is only about 20,000 among 12 million Palestinians. They are hardly representative.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

There is no "One Single Cause." Different Key Personalities have differing perspectives. Just like those of us in this Discussion Group.

What Is It About Palestinian Accountability That So Irks Tlaib and Sarsour? (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This conflict is about colonialism not religion.

(COMMENT)

As much as you want it to be "colonialism," going that way is complaining about something which is NOT illegal.

As much as you want it to be a case of "Acquisition by Force," it is not.

.........View attachment 276584
Most Respectfully,
R

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........ View attachment 276640
Most Respectfully,
R

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

Palestine was occupied for 70 years before there was a Hamas.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........ View attachment 276640
Most Respectfully,
R

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

Armed struggle for liberation is legal.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........ View attachment 276640
Most Respectfully,
R

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

So, who were the aggressors and what land did they lose?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........ View attachment 276640
Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, blah, blah, blah...

Here again, armed struggle for liberation is legal.

 

[Hollie]

What Is It About Palestinian Accountability That So Irks Tlaib and Sarsour? (Daled Amos) ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

This conflict is about colonialism not religion.

You may have missed it during the last half-dozen times it was explained for you but let’s run through it again, shall we?

The term “Allah” appears 92 separate times in the Hamas charter. That bit of Islamo-goodness is chock full of appeals to Allah to assist in the slaughter of Jews and the Islamist re-colonization of lands they previously conquered and lost.

You will also notice that the Hamas charter refers to land that is now the State of Israel as an Islamist waqf. The term waqf has also been defined for you on numerous occasions.

It’s concerning that you don’t grasp these concepts even after they have been delineated for you on, you know, numerous occasions.

Ah, the Hamas lady posts again. Hamas is only about 20,000 among 12 million Palestinians. They are hardly representative.

Oh. I guess you somehow missed the part that Hamas was elected to office by Pal’istanians and that Hamas is the ruling, authoritarian Islamic terrorist franchise ruling Gaza.

But your claim is that Hamas are “hardly representative”.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This act, where Arab Palestinians play at being the victims, is getting old. It can only be valid IF (and only IF) it can be shown that there is no other reason or scenario in which the Arab Palestinian can be the victim and still use ONLY "armed struggle" as an organizations policy.

※ Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

※ The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it.

※ AND Customary and International Humanitarian Law says that "civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack when they participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6 C&IHL)."​

All of the land that Israel acquired involved guns.

Defense against the Arab-Moslem attackers.

It is Israeli troops V Palestinian civilians.

(COMMENT)

It is true, that all the territory under discussion involved the used of force at one point or another. But then that is true for every country in Europe, Russia, and the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. The (original source) law pertaining to what most people cite as the → prohibition on the use of force is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​

It does not prohibit any nation from using their Armed Forces to repel an aggressor, and it does not include territory lost by the aggressor in a failed military expedition.

OR PUT ANOTHER WAY​

It does not prohibit Israel from using force to repel Arab League agressors or taking in hot pursuit of withdrawing Arab Forces territory overtaken in the process.

This was true in the Great War (AKA WWI) when the Allied Powers defeated the Axis Powers (of which the Ottoman Empire was a part) acquired territory under Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (the territory under discussion).

(TODAYS APPLICATION)

You can no more claim that the Arab Palestinians are an unarmed civilian rabble posing no military threat, then you can claim that penetration operations, infiltration Tunnels, Kidnap and Murder of unarmed civilians, suicide bombings, launching rocket and mortar barrages, organized Massive Scale Incidiary Protests and Demonstrations, spontaneous attacks against the Occupation Power, etc, etc, etc are examples of an "unarmed Arab Palestinian people."

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, or indirect support of Hostile Arab Palestinians engages in direct armed action against the Israelis, is simply an illusion. The idea that the general population could not stop HAMAS from their hostile operations is just a fallacy. Similarly, the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank (formerly sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom) are composed of several organizations that are either Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters. The idea that are poor unarmed and peaceful civilians is simply an irresponsible assumption. Everyone from the age of Ahed Tamimi (Palestinian activist) to old grandmother has the potential for staging a spontaneous lone wolf attack. It happens quite frequently.

People don't challenge you because they simply don't know the world that can explain your propagandist style approach to the discussions.

........ View attachment 276640
Most Respectfully,
R

The idea that the Arab Palestinian People are not engaged in either direct hostilities against the Israelis, blah, blah, blah...

Here again, armed struggle for liberation is legal.

On the other hand, the goal of the Islamic terrorist franchises in the two competing mini-caliphates is the destruction of Israel and killing of Jews. That is consistent with Islamic revulsion for Jews, the goals of the Hamas charter and the history of Islamic conquest and colonization.

Here again, armed struggle as a means for Israel to defend itself from the Islamic gee-had is legal.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is NOT exactly true.

Keep this in mind as you read the comment. This is where you must put on your thinking cap.

◈ Legal actions are NOT punishable by Law.
◈ Illegal action arepunishable by law.​

Armed struggle for liberation is legal.

(COMMENT)



Equivalent to a Misdemeanor Offense by most domestic laws:

Who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.​

Equivalent to a Felony Offense by most domestic laws:

The Occupying Power may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where:

• The person is guilty of espionage,
• The person is guilty of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
• The person is guilty of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

IF the disputed territories (West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza Strip) are "occupied" as you claim.

~ AND ~​

THEN any attack by the people under occupation (ie the Arab Palestinians) against the Occupying Power (ie the Israelis) is (without question) illegal under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) pursuant to Article 68 (Section III : Occupied territories) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV).​

Your excuse that "Armed Struggle" is for the purpose of Liberation may be true, but that does NOT make it legal. No other (I say again - no other) legislative act, International Treaty or Convention supersedes the GCIV. Even the Arab League knows you cannot circumvent Customary & IHL to make the implementation of Arab Palestinian Act prohibited by the 19 universal legal instruments and additional amendments dealing with terrorism.

To argue against this fact is to oppose the Customary & IHL and the universal legal instruments.
Even the Incendiary devices that the HAMAS protests encouraged is a violation of the Customary and IHL as a device.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

THIS is simply Not True. (SEE Posting #911)

Here again, armed struggle for liberation is legal.

(COMMENT)

This is just something that, when repeated enough, people begin to believe it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is NOT exactly true.

Keep this in mind as you read the comment. This is where you must put on your thinking cap.

◈ Legal actions are NOT punishable by Law.
◈ Illegal action arepunishable by law.​

Armed struggle for liberation is legal.

(COMMENT)



Equivalent to a Misdemeanor Offense by most domestic laws:

Who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.​

Equivalent to a Felony Offense by most domestic laws:

The Occupying Power may impose the death penalty on a protected person only in cases where:

• The person is guilty of espionage,
• The person is guilty of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
• The person is guilty of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons.​

IF the disputed territories (West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza Strip) are "occupied" as you claim.

~ AND ~​

THEN any attack by the people under occupation (ie the Arab Palestinians) against the Occupying Power (ie the Israelis) is (without question) illegal under Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) pursuant to Article 68 (Section III : Occupied territories) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV).​

Your excuse that "Armed Struggle" is for the purpose of Liberation may be true, but that does NOT make it legal. No other (I say again - no other) legislative act, International Treaty or Convention supersedes the GCIV. Even the Arab League knows you cannot circumvent Customary & IHL to make the implementation of Arab Palestinian Act prohibited by the 19 universal legal instruments and additional amendments dealing with terrorism.

To argue against this fact is to oppose the Customary & IHL and the universal legal instruments.
Even the Incendiary devices that the HAMAS protests encouraged is a violation of the Customary and IHL as a device.

Most Respectfully,
R

**** Israel. It does not give a rat's ass about any law.

Until Israel stops violating the law, you have nothing to say.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

Second: The UN Recognized Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) does not now, nor has it ever encluded the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You would know that if you bothered to look at the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories published by Secretariat 2019 Working Papers.

Third: The State of Israel is not now, nor has it ever been considered by the UN Committee of 24 as an Administrator of a NSGT.
​

You could not have been more wrong about the topic if you tried.

**** Israel. It does not give a rat's ass about any law.

Until Israel stops violating the law, you have nothing to say.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

You should try not to rally around concepts that you have not researched.

As to the second question, one must distinguish between resolutions and decisions which are purely recommendatory in nature and resolutions and decisions which are binding on Member States. In general, resolutions and decisions other than those relating to the institutional framework and administrative and financial administration of the Organization are recommendatory in nature and are thus not legally binding even on those Members that vote in favour of the resolutions or decisions in question. To the extent that resolutions or decisions produce legally binding effects on the Members of the Organization, all Member States are legally bound to comply with such resolutions or decisions validly adopted in accordance with the provisions of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations. Such legally binding resolutions or decisions include decisions relating to the adoption of the scale of assessments for the appointment of expenses of the Organization under Article 17 of the Charter, decisions relating to the budget of the Organization and other decisions relating to the internal administration and management of the Organization. Once a legally binding resolution or decision of this type is validly adopted, it is binding on all Member States, including those that voted against, abstained, were absent or declared their non-participation in the decision-making process.
SOURCE: • UNITED NATIONS JURIDICAL YEARBOOK (1986) Extract from:Chapter VI. Selected legal opinions of the Secretariats of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations •

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

Second: The UN Recognized Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) does not now, nor has it ever encluded the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You would know that if you bothered to look at the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories published by Secretariat 2019 Working Papers.

Third: The State of Israel is not now, nor has it ever been considered by the UN Committee of 24 as an Administrator of a NSGT.
​

You could not have been more wrong about the topic if you tried.

**** Israel. It does not give a rat's ass about any law.

Until Israel stops violating the law, you have nothing to say.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

You should try not to rally around concepts that you have not researched.

As to the second question, one must distinguish between resolutions and decisions which are purely recommendatory in nature and resolutions and decisions which are binding on Member States. In general, resolutions and decisions other than those relating to the institutional framework and administrative and financial administration of the Organization are recommendatory in nature and are thus not legally binding even on those Members that vote in favour of the resolutions or decisions in question. To the extent that resolutions or decisions produce legally binding effects on the Members of the Organization, all Member States are legally bound to comply with such resolutions or decisions validly adopted in accordance with the provisions of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations. Such legally binding resolutions or decisions include decisions relating to the adoption of the scale of assessments for the appointment of expenses of the Organization under Article 17 of the Charter, decisions relating to the budget of the Organization and other decisions relating to the internal administration and management of the Organization. Once a legally binding resolution or decision of this type is validly adopted, it is binding on all Member States, including those that voted against, abstained, were absent or declared their non-participation in the decision-making process.
SOURCE: • UNITED NATIONS JURIDICAL YEARBOOK (1986) Extract from:Chapter VI. Selected legal opinions of the Secretariats of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations •

Most Respectfully,
R

Third: The State of Israel is not now, nor has it ever been considered by the UN Committee of 24 as an Administrator of a NSGT.

It has in subsequent UN resolutions.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

Second: The UN Recognized Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) does not now, nor has it ever encluded the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. You would know that if you bothered to look at the Table of Non-Self-Governing Territories published by Secretariat 2019 Working Papers.

Third: The State of Israel is not now, nor has it ever been considered by the UN Committee of 24 as an Administrator of a NSGT.
​

You could not have been more wrong about the topic if you tried.

**** Israel. It does not give a rat's ass about any law.

Until Israel stops violating the law, you have nothing to say.

4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration​

(COMMENT)

You should try not to rally around concepts that you have not researched.

As to the second question, one must distinguish between resolutions and decisions which are purely recommendatory in nature and resolutions and decisions which are binding on Member States. In general, resolutions and decisions other than those relating to the institutional framework and administrative and financial administration of the Organization are recommendatory in nature and are thus not legally binding even on those Members that vote in favour of the resolutions or decisions in question. To the extent that resolutions or decisions produce legally binding effects on the Members of the Organization, all Member States are legally bound to comply with such resolutions or decisions validly adopted in accordance with the provisions of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Charter of the United Nations. Such legally binding resolutions or decisions include decisions relating to the adoption of the scale of assessments for the appointment of expenses of the Organization under Article 17 of the Charter, decisions relating to the budget of the Organization and other decisions relating to the internal administration and management of the Organization. Once a legally binding resolution or decision of this type is validly adopted, it is binding on all Member States, including those that voted against, abstained, were absent or declared their non-participation in the decision-making process.
SOURCE: • UNITED NATIONS JURIDICAL YEARBOOK (1986) Extract from:Chapter VI. Selected legal opinions of the Secretariats of the United Nations and related intergovernmental organizations •

Most Respectfully,
R

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

All of the articles in that resolution are based on already existing international law.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

More misinformation...

Third: The State of Israel is not now, nor has it ever been considered by the UN Committee of 24 as an Administrator of a NSGT.

It has in subsequent UN resolutions.

(COMMENT)

I challenge anyone to come up with a resolution that recognizes Israel as a C-24 Administrator of a Non-Self-Governing Territory.

The list is updated annually and the 2019 list does not include Israel. There are four other countries that are on the list, including the United States, but Israel is not one.



........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

More and more misinformation.

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

All of the articles in that resolution are based on already existing international law.

(COMMENT)

Resolution A/RES/15/1514 (XV), unlike most resolutions, does not reference a single resolution that came before it. It would be most helpful to us all if you would reference one single Resolution that impacts A/RES/15/1514 (XV) or overrides the C-24 Committee.


........
Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Newly Elected Muslim Congresswomen Favor Eliminating Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

More and more misinformation.

First: General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 is NOT International Law and is not enforceable.

All of the articles in that resolution are based on already existing international law.

(COMMENT)

Resolution A/RES/15/1514 (XV), unlike most resolutions, does not reference a single resolution that came before it. It would be most helpful to us all if you would reference one single Resolution that impacts A/RES/15/1514 (XV) or overrides the C-24 Committee.


........View attachment 276703
Most Respectfully,
R

The resolution is based on the UN Charter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

New Muslim congresswomen favor eliminating Israel

I am so happy they stated that is the long term Goal. For that reason alone Israel will never give up any more territory or allow " Right of Return"

Just one problem...the article headline and thread title are lies.