The Palestinians' right of return is inevitable.
It always seems impossible until it is done. ~ Nelson Mandela
From the River to the Sea includes all of Israel! That extremist view will never come to fruition, and it is futile and self-defeating to perpetuate that delusion. Israel is a thriving country.
It always seems impossible until it is done. ~ Nelson Mandela
From the River to the Sea includes all of Israel! That extremist view will never come to fruition, and it is futile and self-defeating to perpetuate that delusion. Israel is a thriving country.
-
They don't want just one state for themselves,
The Israeli’s want the entire middle east under exclusive Zionist domination, and then some...
(PANELIST)
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is not a sanctioned symposium by any officiating authority. This is a quasi-activist organization; merely attempting to auction themselves off as being an authority.
(PANELIST)
• Lawyer, journalist and activist.
• Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University
• Associate Professor of Law, University of Western Ontario
(COMMENT)
This is, from the very beginning, is an attempt to present an argumentum ad passiones without an opposing view (ie "unbalanced or totally one-sided) and heavily relies on the capture of the emotion in the target audience.
You will no doubt notice that the first speaker (lawyer, journalist and activist) harped on the point that the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) however, the speaker made a specific point to impress the idea that the Arab Palestinians were protected person and victims under the GCIV. Not once did the speaker allude to the fact that in 1967:
◈ The Israeli capture of the West Bank was actually the occupation of Jordanian Sovereign Territory (not Palestinian Territory). And that in 1988, the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem into the hands of the Israelis, cutting all ties (legal and political) knowing the only authority remaining was that of the Israelis.
◈ The GCIV make the Arab Palestinian (protected person or not) liable to internment or simple imprisonment for:
✦ The attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration.
✦ Vandelism and damage the property of the occupying forces or administration.
✦ Espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
✦ Intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (no matter what their status).
The entire symposium goes on and on in this fashion. If you are into this perspective or need to reinforce your anti-Israeli approach, then this is the video for you.
Most Respectfully,
R
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
This is not a sanctioned symposium by any officiating authority. This is a quasi-activist organization; merely attempting to auction themselves off as being an authority.
(PANELIST)
• Lawyer, journalist and activist.
• Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University
• Associate Professor of Law, University of Western Ontario
(COMMENT)
This is, from the very beginning, is an attempt to present an argumentum ad passiones without an opposing view (ie "unbalanced or totally one-sided) and heavily relies on the capture of the emotion in the target audience.
You will no doubt notice that the first speaker (lawyer, journalist and activist) harped on the point that the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) however, the speaker made a specific point to impress the idea that the Arab Palestinians were protected person and victims under the GCIV. Not once did the speaker allude to the fact that in 1967:
◈ The Israeli capture of the West Bank was actually the occupation of Jordanian Sovereign Territory (not Palestinian Territory). And that in 1988, the Jordanians abandon the West Bank and Jerusalem into the hands of the Israelis, cutting all ties (legal and political) knowing the only authority remaining was that of the Israelis.
◈ The GCIV make the Arab Palestinian (protected person or not) liable to internment or simple imprisonment for:
✦ The attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration.
✦ Vandelism and damage the property of the occupying forces or administration.
✦ Espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power.
✦ Intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons (no matter what their status).
The entire symposium goes on and on in this fashion. If you are into this perspective or need to reinforce your anti-Israeli approach, then this is the video for you.
Most Respectfully,
R
So? pick put something they said and oppose away.
They don't want just one state for themselves,
The Israeli’s want the entire middle east under exclusive Zionist domination, and then some...
Israelis have less than 1% of the entire middle east,
Muslims have the remaining 99%.
Israel is the only nation in the middle east, though one of the smallest,
that the Muslims can't manage to subdue on their way of achieving exclusive domination.
The Palestinians' right of return is inevitable.
It always seems impossible until it is done. ~ Nelson Mandela
From the River to the Sea includes all of Israel! That extremist view will never come to fruition, and it is futile and self-defeating to perpetuate that delusion. Israel is a thriving country.
They don't want just one state for themselves,
The Israeli’s want the entire middle east under exclusive Zionist domination, and then some...
(COMMENT)
RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,
Chuckle!
(COMMENT)
I think I just did, in my example.
But another example would be the intentional misdirection:
Without a determination of oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or group, as implied in the case of Israel → and the UN A/RES3379 (XXX) records the Determination that zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. This argument has already been fought and won by the Israelis.
✧ Elimination of racism and racial discrimination A/RES/46/86 REVOCATION pertaining to A/RES/3379 (XXX) 16 December 1991 ✧
I did not hear any of the panelists make mention that the formal accusation racism and discrimination had been revoked. This would be a very clear cut and very distinct example of an intentional misdirection (Article 61, ICC Rome Statute): "The Statute places an important obligation upon the Prosecutor to disclose evidence that is exculpatory, mitigating, or which may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence." (Quoted from the Principles and Procedures of International Prosecutions, pp 382.)
Normally, I would make such a point on the matter, especially with a layman, but the first speaker was a Lawyer. But in my opinion, I find that this questions the integrity of the presentation when such
Evidence that clear accused is intentionally omitted → coming dangerously close to malfeasance if it was an officially sanctioned presentation as an officer of the court.
Most Respectfully,
R
Nice deflection. Another example of sliming the source without addressing the content.
