Palestine Today

[rylah]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

The Arabs chose to help Britain invade,
Ceded the land to an Arabian king
Declared war on all Jews.

All their choices.
What they have is what they deserve.

 

[rylah]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

Why do You post here when You know so little?

Arabs do and did,one of the main reasons for the creation of Israel were the Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors.

 

[rylah]

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

If they are not attacking Israel -- then they are attacking Jews. They attack Jews for being present in a space they believe should be Jew-free. Thank you for acknowledging that the violence committed by Arab "Palestinians" is not an attack on Israel -- but just an attack on Jews. We agree.

Why would Jews be in Palestinian Villages and neighborhoods?

It's purely for business -

invading Arabs made sure not to cleanse all Jews from the land so that they could pay the racketeers for protection.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another one of those myths you Arab Palestinians cling to.

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with the international law.

You should read up.

Nice duck. Sweeties, I run circles around you with international law. (Though Rocco slays it even better than I do.)

Answer my question. Can Palestine be divided, yes or no?

Not without the approval of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181 so the Security Council did not implement the plan.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretations are clearly incorrect concerning A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947.

■ Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181,

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.​

PART - I Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

■ The claim is that the Security Council did not implement the plan.

✪⇒ The implmentation was delegated to UNPC.
✪⇒ Implementation by the UNSC was not a requirement. However, the Resolution afforded the UN Palestine Commission ever latitude and discretion within the limits of the Resolution.​

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.

"that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact, the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." This was a UN Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948 made as a matter of record.

The original plan for the establishment of the Jewish State (Part II Section B) was altered by the outcome of the Arab Invasion.

As you can see, the claims are quite false.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.

You only say this because you believe that somehow Palestinians are exempt from universal inalienable rights.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

Why do You post here when You know so little?

Arabs do and did,one of the main reasons for the creation of Israel were the Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors.

They were not attacking their neighbors. They were attacking the settler colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

2. The treaties were to conclude the 1948 War of Independence

Independent from what?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

OH, don't be foolish.

We were talking about the dispute.

The 1967 border, which is defined as the 1949 Armistice Line along with all legal modification thereto up to June 4th, 1967, is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.

Those are internationally recognized de facto borders. They are not international borders. Israel does not claim them to be their borders.

(COMMENT)

As has been discussed before, the "international" demarcations are:

• Article 3 - International Boundary The international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a)

• Article II The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine,
​

You will note that the "treaties" outline the "international boundaries."

Eventually, the Arab Palestinians, unless they get some political savvy, will eventually an albatross on the Arab League.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course, nobody explained how Israel can claim a Palestinian border without a treaty with Palestine.

(COMMENT)

1. Israel did not claim a border with the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip.

2. The treaties were to conclude the 1948 War of Independence and to drawn an end to hostilities between the Arab Countries.

3. All the Middle Eastern Arab Countries understood that the Arab Palestinians did not have any form of sovereignty to start with.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, now can you address my post?

 

[Hollie]

I don't recall the Palestinians ever choosing to be attacked by Israel.

The presence of Jews in their own homeland is not an "attack". Gazans have every choice right now, in this moment. They choose to continue to attempt to provoke Israel with acts of violence. They have other choices.

Palestinians are attacked in their own villages and neighborhoods. They do not go attack Israel.

Why do You post here when You know so little?

Arabs do and did,one of the main reasons for the creation of Israel were the Arab pogroms against their Jewish neighbors.

They were not attacking their neighbors. They were attacking the settler colonial project.

Arabs-Moslems were the settler colonial project.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

This is another one of those myths you Arab Palestinians cling to.

You are only confused because you are unfamiliar with the international law.

You should read up.

Nice duck. Sweeties, I run circles around you with international law. (Though Rocco slays it even better than I do.)

Answer my question. Can Palestine be divided, yes or no?

Not without the approval of the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181 so the Security Council did not implement the plan.

(COMMENT)

Your interpretations are clearly incorrect concerning A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947.

■ Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181,

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.​

PART - I Section F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS
When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

■ The claim is that the Security Council did not implement the plan.

✪⇒ The implmentation was delegated to UNPC.
✪⇒ Implementation by the UNSC was not a requirement. However, the Resolution afforded the UN Palestine Commission ever latitude and discretion within the limits of the Resolution.​

14. The Commission shall be guided in its activities by the recommendations of the General Assembly and by such instructions as the Security Council may consider necessary to issue.

The measures taken by the Commission, within the recommendations of the General Assembly, shall become immediately effective unless the Commission has previously received contrary instructions from the Security Council.

"that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact, the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." This was a UN Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948 made as a matter of record.

The original plan for the establishment of the Jewish State (Part II Section B) was altered by the outcome of the Arab Invasion.

As you can see, the claims are quite false.

Most Respectfully,
R

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.

You only say this because you believe that somehow Palestinians are exempt from universal inalienable rights.

You only say that because Arabs-Moslems reject the universal inalienable rights of others. Islamism is a supremacist ideology.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

The Arabs chose to help Britain invade,
Ceded the land to an Arabian king
Declared war on all Jews.

All their choices.
What they have is what they deserve.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore
How else do You define a suicidal inclination at continuing the conflict on the account of Your own people, for mere existence of the conflict??

It is Israel's conflict. The Palestinians have no choice in the matter.

The Arabs chose to help Britain invade,
Ceded the land to an Arabian king
Declared war on all Jews.

All their choices.
What they have is what they deserve.

WTF are you talking about?

Nice duck.

 

[Shusha]

This article reflects one of the comments I made to P F Tinmore yesterday concerning Palestinian choice. It correctly places the future of Palestine in the hands of Palestinians and reminds us that Israel can not force Palestinians to act to accept either land or peace. Thus, there is no dilemma for Israel. Its out of our hands.

The Over-Dramatization of Israel's Dilemma

Israel is not facing a dilemma about how much, if any, land to give up from the West Bank, because the Palestinians will not agree to take land and cannot be forced to do so. The Palestinian community sees peace with Israel as defeat in their 100-year struggle. Continued Israeli occupation is one of the Palestinians’ best weapons against Israel, and they will not give it up while their war to eliminate Israel continues. Israelis should recognize that since the Palestinians are forcing Israel to continue the temporary but long-term occupation, Israelis need to a) cooperate in reducing the moral and other costs of that occupation; and b) stop telling the world that Israel could choose to end the occupation.

We are not facing a dilemma about giving up territory. We are facing a distasteful task, and a need for patience over a period of decades.

Israel does not now have a choice about giving the Palestinians land or creating a Palestinian state; Israel is therefore not facing a dilemma.

While there are undoubtedly peace-seeking Palestinians, as a community, the Palestinians have not even begun to discuss the possibility of making a peace that accepts Israel and ends the Palestinian effort to gain all the land “from the river to the sea.” Nor have they begun public discussion of the possibility of most of the “refugees” settling outside Israel. Without debate among Palestinians, there is no way they can give up their determination to destroy Israel and make a genuine peace.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to be a bit careful here.

• Post 2459 directly quotes the Part, Section, and Paragraph of the passage from the Recommendation.
​

This is just one of those Myths that the Arab Palestinians believe because they have difficulty reading the passage. While I post documentation that dispells your theory, you return with the suggestion that I oppose "rights" which cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another (inalienable). As if the acceptance or rejection in the participation in the Steps Preparatory to Independence has something to do with some sort of "right."

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" or "reject" the process.

You only say this because you believe that somehow Palestinians are exempt from universal inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

On the second point, I do not hold any such belief that the Hostile Arab Palestinian have been withheld any particular inalienable rights.

As you know, the "inalienable rights" that the Arab Palestinians go on and on about, are about some "freedom" the Arab Palestinians that allow them to do something. This is articulated in the Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in the Preamble. BUT the concept of "inalienable rights" refers to the fact that it IS NOT a requirement of these rights, that other people must provide them, toil or sacrifice to render something tangible.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether
it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.​

• Negative Rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want.
• Positive Rights do not require others to provide for some benefit of the others.​

A negative right is a right for me to be protected from harm if I try to get something for myself. A positive right would be my right to have something provided for me.

If health care is a negative right, then the state has an obligation to keep people from preventing me from getting health care and discriminating against me. If health care’s a positive right, then the state has an obligation to provide it for me.

SOURCE: • Home / Politics / The Difference Between Negative Rights and Positive Rights •

When the UDHR speaks of rebellion against tyranny and oppression, it is NOT speaking about opposing the Israelis.

• Israel does not challenge the Right of the Arab Palestinian to life, liberty and security of person; as long as the Israelis are allowed the same.

• The Israelis do not hold Arab Palestinians in bondage, slavery or servitude.

• In Israel, are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

• No one is subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

• etc, etc, etc,
​

While Israel has had more UN condemnations in the last half-century, than any other country in the world, when it comes time to actually evaluate the human development benchmarks, Israel is consistently well above that of any Arab League Member Nation; not marginally, but by a considerable level.

Humanity (especially Israel) does not hold any obligation to the Arab Palestinians for a single thing; no matter what they think they are owed.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to be a bit careful here.

• Post 2459 directly quotes the Part, Section, and Paragraph of the passage from the Recommendation.
​

This is just one of those Myths that the Arab Palestinians believe because they have difficulty reading the passage. While I post documentation that dispells your theory, you return with the suggestion that I oppose "rights" which cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another (inalienable). As if the acceptance or rejection in the participation in the Steps Preparatory to Independence has something to do with some sort of "right."

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" or "reject" the process.

You only say this because you believe that somehow Palestinians are exempt from universal inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

On the second point, I do not hold any such belief that the Hostile Arab Palestinian have been withheld any particular inalienable rights.

As you know, the "inalienable rights" that the Arab Palestinians go on and on about, are about some "freedom" the Arab Palestinians that allow them to do something. This is articulated in the Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in the Preamble. BUT the concept of "inalienable rights" refers to the fact that it IS NOT a requirement of these rights, that other people must provide them, toil or sacrifice to render something tangible.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether
it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.​

• Negative Rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want.
• Positive Rights do not require others to provide for some benefit of the others.​

A negative right is a right for me to be protected from harm if I try to get something for myself. A positive right would be my right to have something provided for me.

If health care is a negative right, then the state has an obligation to keep people from preventing me from getting health care and discriminating against me. If health care’s a positive right, then the state has an obligation to provide it for me.

SOURCE: • Home / Politics / The Difference Between Negative Rights and Positive Rights •

When the UDHR speaks of rebellion against tyranny and oppression, it is NOT speaking about opposing the Israelis.

• Israel does not challenge the Right of the Arab Palestinian to life, liberty and security of person; as long as the Israelis are allowed the same.

• The Israelis do not hold Arab Palestinians in bondage, slavery or servitude.

• In Israel, are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

• No one is subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

• etc, etc, etc,
​

While Israel has had more UN condemnations in the last half-century, than any other country in the world, when it comes time to actually evaluate the human development benchmarks, Israel is consistently well above that of any Arab League Member Nation; not marginally, but by a considerable level.

Humanity (especially Israel) does not hold any obligation to the Arab Palestinians for a single thing; no matter what they think they are owed.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians do not expect Israel to "provide" anything.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestine Today​

※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to be a bit careful here.

• Post 2459 directly quotes the Part, Section, and Paragraph of the passage from the Recommendation.
​

This is just one of those Myths that the Arab Palestinians believe because they have difficulty reading the passage. While I post documentation that dispells your theory, you return with the suggestion that I oppose "rights" which cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another (inalienable). As if the acceptance or rejection in the participation in the Steps Preparatory to Independence has something to do with some sort of "right."

✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" or "reject" the process.

You only say this because you believe that somehow Palestinians are exempt from universal inalienable rights.

(COMMENT)

On the second point, I do not hold any such belief that the Hostile Arab Palestinian have been withheld any particular inalienable rights.

As you know, the "inalienable rights" that the Arab Palestinians go on and on about, are about some "freedom" the Arab Palestinians that allow them to do something. This is articulated in the Resolution 217 A (III) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), in the Preamble. BUT the concept of "inalienable rights" refers to the fact that it IS NOT a requirement of these rights, that other people must provide them, toil or sacrifice to render something tangible.

Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional
or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether
it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.​

• Negative Rights requires that no man can be forced to do anything he doesn't want.
• Positive Rights do not require others to provide for some benefit of the others.​

A negative right is a right for me to be protected from harm if I try to get something for myself. A positive right would be my right to have something provided for me.

If health care is a negative right, then the state has an obligation to keep people from preventing me from getting health care and discriminating against me. If health care’s a positive right, then the state has an obligation to provide it for me.

SOURCE: • Home / Politics / The Difference Between Negative Rights and Positive Rights •

When the UDHR speaks of rebellion against tyranny and oppression, it is NOT speaking about opposing the Israelis.

• Israel does not challenge the Right of the Arab Palestinian to life, liberty and security of person; as long as the Israelis are allowed the same.

• The Israelis do not hold Arab Palestinians in bondage, slavery or servitude.

• In Israel, are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

• No one is subject to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

• etc, etc, etc,
​

While Israel has had more UN condemnations in the last half-century, than any other country in the world, when it comes time to actually evaluate the human development benchmarks, Israel is consistently well above that of any Arab League Member Nation; not marginally, but by a considerable level.

Humanity (especially Israel) does not hold any obligation to the Arab Palestinians for a single thing; no matter what they think they are owed.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians do not expect Israel to "provide" anything.

I wasn’t aware you were promoted to Head Propagandist in Charge of What Arab-Moslems Expect.

 

[P F Tinmore]

■ Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181,
✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.

There you go again believing that the Palestinians have no rights.

 

[Hollie]

■ Palestinians did not approve of Resolution 181,
✪⇒ Nothing in the recommendation requires the Arab Palestinians to "approve" anything. The Recommendation is such that either party may "accept" of "reject" the process.

There you go again believing that the Palestinians have no rights.

Why do you post here when you know so little?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]