Palestine Today

[member]

The Palestinians only ask for their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights cannot be negotiated away.

Of course. The Hamas charter ia a long, tedious appeal to ideals of Islamic fascism. That was for centuries an islamic inalienable right.

PT FINKMORE....sobski --- FORGET IT.

The Bible says it all. yes, Palestine existed. that was 'her' name centuries ago, [PALESTINE] and centuries ago the people who lived there - were Hebrews/the "jews." then, as time went on, ruffians came and went -- they all had their hands on the joint and all wanted it or themselves....

eons later, the muslims decided THEY wanted it for themselves and in a brutal way... took it over.

Palestine was INHABITED by "Hebrews" - the Hebrews[jews] were there 1st. Palestine TODAY....is now CALLED israel...

if anyone is squatting on Palestinian/iSRAEL land --- are the muslims.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

I wonder if you read the entire posting → especially the link in bold print.

A: The PLO was in Lebanon because they were unwanted in Jordan...

Nice duck.

(COMMENT)

I hope you realize that anyone who reads • Post #5074 • that they will know that the answer DID NOT duck the question at all. They will understand that HM King Hussein expelled the PLO.

over that of "peaceful negotiation"

The Palestinians only ask for their inalienable rights. Inalienable rights cannot be negotiated away.

(COMMENT)

For someone who uses this lame excuse about "rights" so frequently → it is amazing that you somehow appear not to know the difference between a positive and a negative political right.

--- Positive Rights Conflict Most of All with Our Basic Negative Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property ---
​

§ Natural rights—or, as they have been un-euphoniously dubbed, “negative rights”—pertain to freedom from the uninvited interventions of others.

§ Positive rights, by contrast, require that we be provided with goods or services at the expense of other persons, which can only be accomplished by systematic coercion.​

See: The Difference Between Negative Rights and Positive Rights

No one owes the Arab Palestinians anything. The State of Israel does not have to forfeit anything to the Arab Palestinians. The Israelis have the "Right" to what they hold sovereign.

Most Respectfully,
R

Got a map of Israel without those fake border armistice lines?

 

[Shusha]

Got a map of Israel without those fake border armistice lines?

Oh please. You keep bringing this up as though it matters when discussing the basic, universal, inviolable, non-negotiable RIGHTS of peoples. Its another one of the red herrings you throw up in order to deflect the conversation from the actual issue under discussion.

The funny thing about your arguments is that you are entirely correct and would be winning the whole debate -- IF you just applied the same rights equally and universally to all people.

The Arab Palestinians have every right to self-determination in their homeland. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to sovereignty and independence in their homeland. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to territorial integrity. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to return to the land of their ancestors. (So do the the Jewish people).

Let me take the Jewish people out of (parentheses).

The Jewish people have every right to self-determination in their homeland.
The Jewish people have every right to sovereignty and independence in their homeland.
The Jewish people have every right to territorial integrity.
The Jewish people have every right to return to the land of their ancestors.

These are inherent, inviolable, universal rights. They can't be lost. Or violated. Or negotiated away. Right? YOU keep insisting that they can not be lost or violated or negotiated away. Right?

The good news is that it is not a zero sum game with only one peoples having access to the rights. Both peoples can have all of these rights. Just like the peoples of the Czech Republic and Slovakia both have all of those rights. Just like the peoples of Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia and Slovenia and Macedonia and Montenegro all have all of those rights.

But you are so stuck in this Palestinian mentality that "surrender" is out of the question; that you would rather die than live in peaceful harmony alongside another peoples; that your rights are somehow SO 'special' that you are literally willing to give up every single chance of success and happiness in a fruitless quest for some sort of ideological "win". It is ridiculous. Truly.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Got a map of Israel without those fake border armistice lines?

Oh please. You keep bringing this up as though it matters when discussing the basic, universal, inviolable, non-negotiable RIGHTS of peoples. Its another one of the red herrings you throw up in order to deflect the conversation from the actual issue under discussion.

The funny thing about your arguments is that you are entirely correct and would be winning the whole debate -- IF you just applied the same rights equally and universally to all people.

The Arab Palestinians have every right to self-determination in their homeland. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to sovereignty and independence in their homeland. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to territorial integrity. (So do the Jewish people).
The Arab Palestinians have every right to return to the land of their ancestors. (So do the the Jewish people).

Let me take the Jewish people out of (parentheses).

The Jewish people have every right to self-determination in their homeland.
The Jewish people have every right to sovereignty and independence in their homeland.
The Jewish people have every right to territorial integrity.
The Jewish people have every right to return to the land of their ancestors.

These are inherent, inviolable, universal rights. They can't be lost. Or violated. Or negotiated away. Right? YOU keep insisting that they can not be lost or violated or negotiated away. Right?

The good news is that it is not a zero sum game with only one peoples having access to the rights. Both peoples can have all of these rights. Just like the peoples of the Czech Republic and Slovakia both have all of those rights. Just like the peoples of Serbia and Bosnia and Croatia and Slovenia and Macedonia and Montenegro all have all of those rights.

But you are so stuck in this Palestinian mentality that "surrender" is out of the question; that you would rather die than live in peaceful harmony alongside another peoples; that your rights are somehow SO 'special' that you are literally willing to give up every single chance of success and happiness in a fruitless quest for some sort of ideological "win". It is ridiculous. Truly.

WOW, have you been mislead.

 

[RoccoR]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

I am surprised that, in your travels, you do not see the fallacy of her claims. We have had this discussion before.

"All peoples have the inalienable right to..." is the way rights are described. Why do they always say peoples and not just people? Peoples are territorial. People are not. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. They are defined by the territory for which they belong. These are national rights. A territory and a people are "married" to each other. They cannot be separated.

Montevideo says that a state must have a defined territory. A people need a defined territory. In the rules of nationality and state succession, when an old state dissolves and a new state is formed, the people become nationals of the new state. When the Turkish Empire dissolved and Palestine was formed, all of the people inside that defined territory became Palestinians. Their nationality changed, their religion did not.

The French, the British, the Palestinians, etc. are all defined by the territory for which they belong. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Wiccans, etc. are religions and not defined by any particular territory.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

Little Muhammud at summer camp

 

[USAF 2023]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[rylah]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

I am surprised that, in your travels, you do not see the fallacy of her claims. We have had this discussion before.

"All peoples have the inalienable right to..." is the way rights are described. Why do they always say peoples and not just people? Peoples are territorial. People are not. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. They are defined by the territory for which they belong. These are national rights. A territory and a people are "married" to each other. They cannot be separated.

Montevideo says that a state must have a defined territory. A people need a defined territory. In the rules of nationality and state succession, when an old state dissolves and a new state is formed, the people become nationals of the new state. When the Turkish Empire dissolved and Palestine was formed, all of the people inside that defined territory became Palestinians. Their nationality changed, their religion did not.

The French, the British, the Palestinians, etc. are all defined by the territory for which they belong. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Wiccans, etc. are religions and not defined by any particular territory.

That's a lame misconception easily pierced by international law.
The Jewish Nation was defined by territory, since the year 1920.

It has become the US law as well.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Sovereignty (in this case) is understood to be that territory over which the people of the State Israel exercises and enforces its Supreme Authority to the exclusion of any other States (including the external Arab Palestinians).

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

(COMMENT)

This is a distorted counterview made to slide away from where sovereignties are bounded in the reality of the physical world.

They want to say that the (as an example) Security Barrier is a form of apartheid, yet they are not willing to recognize that the sovereignty on either side of the Security Barrier is different from the other side. They want to claim that they are stupid to the point that they cannot recognize the territorial border markings and barriers; yet, the Arab Palestinians just tried in the last few months to breach these barriers that they cannot see or recognize. AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

I am surprised that, in your travels, you do not see the fallacy of her claims. We have had this discussion before.

"All peoples have the inalienable right to..." is the way rights are described. Why do they always say peoples and not just people? Peoples are territorial. People are not. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. They are defined by the territory for which they belong. These are national rights. A territory and a people are "married" to each other. They cannot be separated.

Montevideo says that a state must have a defined territory. A people need a defined territory. In the rules of nationality and state succession, when an old state dissolves and a new state is formed, the people become nationals of the new state. When the Turkish Empire dissolved and Palestine was formed, all of the people inside that defined territory became Palestinians. Their nationality changed, their religion did not.

The French, the British, the Palestinians, etc. are all defined by the territory for which they belong. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Wiccans, etc. are religions and not defined by any particular territory.

Weasel words.

With your discussion of the dissolution of the Turkish Empire, you acknowledge that "territorial integrity" can be broken, that marriages to territory dissolve, that new nationalities can be founded, that new states can be formed, that boundaries can be added, that territories can be redefined, that new states can succeed old states and that defined peoples can have national rights.

You have defeated your own argument quite succinctly. And proven further that you have special rules for the Jewish people.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

I am surprised that, in your travels, you do not see the fallacy of her claims. We have had this discussion before.

"All peoples have the inalienable right to..." is the way rights are described. Why do they always say peoples and not just people? Peoples are territorial. People are not. The French are a people. The British are a people. The Palestinians are a people. They are defined by the territory for which they belong. These are national rights. A territory and a people are "married" to each other. They cannot be separated.

Montevideo says that a state must have a defined territory. A people need a defined territory. In the rules of nationality and state succession, when an old state dissolves and a new state is formed, the people become nationals of the new state. When the Turkish Empire dissolved and Palestine was formed, all of the people inside that defined territory became Palestinians. Their nationality changed, their religion did not.

The French, the British, the Palestinians, etc. are all defined by the territory for which they belong. The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Wiccans, etc. are religions and not defined by any particular territory.

Weasel words.

With your discussion of the dissolution of the Turkish Empire, you acknowledge that "territorial integrity" can be broken, that marriages to territory dissolve, that new nationalities can be founded, that new states can be formed, that boundaries can be added, that territories can be redefined, that new states can succeed old states and that defined peoples can have national rights.

You have defeated your own argument quite succinctly. And proven further that you have special rules for the Jewish people.

You clearly did not understand my post.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sovereignty (in this case) is understood to be that territory over which the people of the State Israel exercises and enforces its Supreme Authority to the exclusion of any other States (including the external Arab Palestinians).

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

(COMMENT)

This is a distorted counterview made to slide away from where sovereignties are bounded in the reality of the physical world.

They want to say that the (as an example) Security Barrier is a form of apartheid, yet they are not willing to recognize that the sovereignty on either side of the Security Barrier is different from the other side. They want to claim that they are stupid to the point that they cannot recognize the territorial border markings and barriers; yet, the Arab Palestinians just tried in the last few months to breach these barriers that they cannot see or recognize. AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Nobody has ever posted any proof that Israel is not an occupation for the purpose of colonization.

 

[rylah]

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

Sovereignty (in this case) is understood to be that territory over which the people of the State Israel exercises and enforces its Supreme Authority to the exclusion of any other States (including the external Arab Palestinians).

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

(COMMENT)

This is a distorted counterview made to slide away from where sovereignties are bounded in the reality of the physical world.

They want to say that the (as an example) Security Barrier is a form of apartheid, yet they are not willing to recognize that the sovereignty on either side of the Security Barrier is different from the other side. They want to claim that they are stupid to the point that they cannot recognize the territorial border markings and barriers; yet, the Arab Palestinians just tried in the last few months to breach these barriers that they cannot see or recognize. AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Nobody has ever posted any proof that Israel is not an occupation for the purpose of colonization.

What territory does Israel occupy that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of its' people under?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Sovereignty (in this case) is understood to be that territory over which the people of the State Israel exercises and enforces its Supreme Authority to the exclusion of any other States (including the external Arab Palestinians).

OK, I'll bite!

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

(COMMENT)

This is a distorted counterview made to slide away from where sovereignties are bounded in the reality of the physical world.

They want to say that the (as an example) Security Barrier is a form of apartheid, yet they are not willing to recognize that the sovereignty on either side of the Security Barrier is different from the other side. They want to claim that they are stupid to the point that they cannot recognize the territorial border markings and barriers; yet, the Arab Palestinians just tried in the last few months to breach these barriers that they cannot see or recognize. AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Nobody has ever posted any proof that Israel is not an occupation for the purpose of colonization.

What territory does Israel occupy that wasn't vested with the sovereignty of its' people?

That was my question.

 

[Hollie]

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

Sovereignty (in this case) is understood to be that territory over which the people of the State Israel exercises and enforces its Supreme Authority to the exclusion of any other States (including the external Arab Palestinians).

OK, I'll bite!

WOW, have you been mislead.

(QUESTION)

What do you think our friend "Shusha" has been mislead about here?

Tell us what is wrong with the thesis "Shusha" as presented here...

Most Respectfully,
R

He talks about “ fake Armistice Lines” yet when you ask what the “ real ones” are there is no response

Then where are they?

(COMMENT)

This is a distorted counterview made to slide away from where sovereignties are bounded in the reality of the physical world.

They want to say that the (as an example) Security Barrier is a form of apartheid, yet they are not willing to recognize that the sovereignty on either side of the Security Barrier is different from the other side. They want to claim that they are stupid to the point that they cannot recognize the territorial border markings and barriers; yet, the Arab Palestinians just tried in the last few months to breach these barriers that they cannot see or recognize. AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

AND the Arab Palestinians want to claim that they were (as our friend PF Tinmre says) born under occupation (effective control by the Israelis) yet, they cannot recognize the difference between the territorial atmosphere of the territories and Israel.

Nobody has ever posted any proof that Israel is not an occupation for the purpose of colonization.

Actually, proof has been posted that Israel is not an occupation for the purpose of colonization.

You have not posted proof to disprove that.

Now, twist that falafel into a pretzel and disprove the disproof.