Palestine Today

[RoccoR]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Support students like Sarah and Thomas who were up against a multimillion-dollar suppression effort. palestinelegal.org/donate

 

[RoccoR]

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

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?
Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

(EPILOG)

I have made my position as clear, uncomplicated and simplified as I can. I think that I have cited all the relevant conventions that apply and the laws that are in effect TODAY... We are not talking about a time when a principle author of the Federalist Papers was still living, or when James Madison was President.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Give to support students who want to study Palestine like Paul.
palestinelegal.org/donate

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestinians celebrate their graduation at the University of Palestine in Gaza City. Photo by Mahmoud Ajjour.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?
Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

(EPILOG)

I have made my position as clear, uncomplicated and simplified as I can. I think that I have cited all the relevant conventions that apply and the laws that are in effect TODAY... We are not talking about a time when a principle author of the Federalist Papers was still living, or when James Madison was President.


Most Respectfully,
R

I have made my position as clear, uncomplicated and simplified as I can.

Indeed, you believe that Palestinians have no rights

 

[toastman]

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

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.

◈ Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.

This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.

(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:

◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

Learn how to read . It has EVERYTHING to do with your post...

Where did itIt didn't.

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

There is no "false premise" here.

Here again, you base your conclusion on false premise.

◈ Additional Protocol 1 does not grant any offense authority anywhere and the parent to the additional Protocol (GCIV) says the exact opposite in Article 68.

This says nothing about Palestine's defensive position that it has held for a hundred years.

(COMMENT)

100 Years ago - 1920

◈ First, they were citizens of the Ottoman Empire under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). This was true until June 1920

◈ Second, they were citizens of the Government of Palestine under the complete Administration of the British High Commissioner.​

THEN in 1948:

◈ They became either:

✦ Citizen of Israel.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Hashemite Kingdom.

✦ Citizens of the territory under the control of the Egyptian Military Government in the Gaza Strip.​

In 1974: The Seventh Arab League Summit Conference passed a resolution that stipulated:

◈ Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated.​

◈ December 1998, "Palestine" was a term used in place of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).​

Today 2020

◈ Some are Citizens of the territory under Area A (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority).

◈ Some are Citizens of territory under Area B (Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under Area C (full Israeli civil and security control).

◈ Some are citizens of the territory under the control of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).

◈ And Some still remain Israeli citizens.​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

Learn how to read . It has EVERYTHING to do with your post...

Where did it mention defense?

It didn't.

Do I need to break down his post word by word??? What are you; 3 years old?
Why don’t you learn how to read and debate before you post

 

[toastman]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Especially after 2000 and 2008.

 

[USAF 2023]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Especially after 2000 and 2008.

He can’t; Especially after 2005

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Why would Palestinians need to acquire Palestine?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Btw, as a general answer to your question, he would claim that the Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters, like the Hagana and Irgun were, when they fought the British. However, there are some differences. First of all, the Jews didn't target civilians, but only British soldiers. Secondly, they proclaimed independence in only part of Eretz Yisrael in 1948. Palestinian terrorists target civilians, and they rejected forming a state in part of "Palestine" in 2000 and 2008.

 

[USAF 2023]

P

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Btw, as a general answer to your question, he would claim that the Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters, like the Hagana and Irgun were, when they fought the British. However, there are some differences. First of all, the Jews didn't target civilians, but only British soldiers. Secondly, they proclaimed independence in only part of Eretz Yisrael in 1948. Palestinian terrorists target civilians, and they rejected forming a state in part of "Palestine" in 2000 and 2008.

Olmert gave them almost everything they wanted. Ask why Abbas rejected it and there will be no response

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Must Have Skill of the 21st Century | Manal Fakhoury | TEDxAlManaraSquare

 

[toastman]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Why would Palestinians need to acquire Palestine?

Palestine is not a country, Israel is. You can cry all you want how you don’t believe Israel is a country blah blah blah.
Fact is , Israel exists and you lost the argument with Rocco , again . Don’t you get tired of losing Tinmore ?

 

[USAF 2023]

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

The idea that the Arab Palestinians had a "defensive position" of any sort, is nonsense. They were not defending anything. They were attempting to take sovereignty or territorial control away from those having or holding the title.

OK, so? What does all that have to do with my post?

(COMMENT)

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory or to achieve some political, economic, military or another objective, goal, or aim, THEN the Arab Palestinians are stepping outside international law.

You know that!​

This is just as true as what these Islamic Resistance Movement criminals know that the international law says: Any person commits an offense by detonating an explosive or incendiary weapon or device that is designed, or has the capability, to cause death, serious bodily injury or substantial material damage has committed an act of terrorism.

And again, the fact that you promote the idea that the Arab Palestinians have the "right" to do this is a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1624 Incitement of Violence (Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts) and the propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law; as well as, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; IAW Article 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR).

BEFORE you and the Arab Palestinians can defense something, it has to be theirs in the first place. The Arab Palestinians (formerly under the managed under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration) was not awarded any territory under the treaty.

You and others claim that the Arab Palestinians are under "occupation" by the Israelis. Whatever the reason you might claim as a people, any Protected persons who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, is subject to prosecution under Article 68 • Section III: Occupied territories • Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV). Again, to suggest it is not, and the Arab Palestinian have some "Right to Armed Struggle" is a violation of the law.

(THE ALTERNATIVE) (In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations and, to this end, shall seek a solution by the means indicated in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter.)

All States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter. The principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, is a bedrock fundamental under the Rule of Law.

Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.
SOURCE: A/RES/25/2625 •

​

I know that this is a lot to absorb. I know that you have been told by many propagandists that there is a provision for Armed Struggle, but the fact is, in the case of the Arab Palestinians there is NOT. The must use Chapter VI: Pacific Settlements of Disputes.

I don't think I can make it any more plain or clear. You know the Rule of Law. It is what it is. Those who have advocated for "Armed Struggle and Jihad" not only have forgotten the law, they have forgotten where they put it.


Most Respectfully,
R

IF you are suggesting, in any way, that the Arab Palestinians had any "Right to Armed Struggle" to acquire territory...

Are you suggesting that it is illegal for the Palestinians to struggle to "acquire" Palestine?

Was it illegal for the US to "attack" Britain in 1812?

Please explain how attacking Israelis is acquiring ‘Palestine’.

Why would Palestinians need to acquire Palestine?

Palestine is not a country, Israel is. You can cry all you want how you don’t believe Israel is a country blah blah blah.
Fact is , Israel exists and you lost the argument with Rocco , again . Don’t you get tired of losing Tinmore ?

Consider the source. Every time he talks about “ Right of Return” I laugh so hard my wife thinks I’m crying.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Conference: State Formation in Palestine. Panel 3/3: The Way Forward