Palestine Today

[USAF 2023]

Mahmoud Abbas’s 1,000 nos




Abbas’s Fatah movement makes it clear that it ideologically rejects Israel’s very legitimacy, despite Palestinian signatures on the Oslo Accords. The parlance in Fatah newspapers and social media accounts is regularly about transience and permanence, calling Israelis abiroun (transient) and Palestinians bakoun (those who remain). The message is clear: Eventually, Israel will be terminated.
Just this week, Fatah Commissioner and Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi posted on Facebook: “Who said that we are for a state [on the lines of] 1967? Who said this? In Fatah, this does not exist in our constitution and our charter!... We say that Nazareth, Haifa, and Acre [i.e., Israeli cities] are Palestinian, and they will remain Palestinian! Our Palestinian land is from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea. I dare any Palestinian, any senior Palestinian official, or any Palestinian leader to reduce the Palestinian map to the West Bank and Gaza! He would not be able to walk one meter in the streets of our Palestinian cities.”

 

[RoccoR]

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

Some terminology becomes irrelevant and even obsolete because their purpose has transmuted from any value as definitive or informative → to → something political and argumentative. The example here, wherein the phrase "settler-colonial project" has been turned from meaning → a foreign effort on behalf of an exploring power that develops in places where "needy settlers" establish themselves and setup a permanence → asserts self-determination on their own behalf (NOT on the behalf of the exploring power) → into → meaning fictitious exploring power that controls and exploits a movement for its own economic and commercial gain.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) generates these negative stories in order to walk over their opposition and to assume a status far beyond that for which they are worthy.

You surely view this conflict through Israel's lens.

(COMMENT)

The lens I see through amount to the five political perspectives used by the HoAP; they are the radical (far left), liberal (left), moderate (middle), conservative (right), and Reactionary (far right). The HoAP do not really have laws through which justice can be focused dispensed. The formal rules that carry the sanction of the international community are NOT able to meet the criteria necessary for the Arab Palestinians. WHY! Because the HoAP see no value in any law that does NOT have a positive outcome for them and a negative impact on the Israeli People.

All Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of Israel's settler colonial project. Settler colonial projects are aggressive by nature. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians did not leave their homes and properties because Israel said please.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are confusing personal property laws with the laws governing statehood and sovereignty. Let's stick to the topic. In a time, before the Armistice of Mudros, the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (later to become known as the HoAP or the Palestinian Black Hand) were respected and protected.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression and to return to their homes and properties.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means. That is a false interpretation of the law.

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.” (BAN KI-MOON, former UN Secretary-General)

The use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination is not terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is NOT a blanket truth. But in any event, it does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Israel already is actualized under self-determination. And the Arab Palestinian rejected the participation in the creation of self-governing institutions. The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Some terminology becomes irrelevant and even obsolete because their purpose has transmuted from any value as definitive or informative → to → something political and argumentative. The example here, wherein the phrase "settler-colonial project" has been turned from meaning → a foreign effort on behalf of an exploring power that develops in places where "needy settlers" establish themselves and setup a permanence → asserts self-determination on their own behalf (NOT on the behalf of the exploring power) → into → meaning fictitious exploring power that controls and exploits a movement for its own economic and commercial gain.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) generates these negative stories in order to walk over their opposition and to assume a status far beyond that for which they are worthy.

You surely view this conflict through Israel's lens.

(COMMENT)

The lens I see through amount to the five political perspectives used by the HoAP; they are the radical (far left), liberal (left), moderate (middle), conservative (right), and Reactionary (far right). The HoAP do not really have laws through which justice can be focused dispensed. The formal rules that carry the sanction of the international community are NOT able to meet the criteria necessary for the Arab Palestinians. WHY! Because the HoAP see no value in any law that does NOT have a positive outcome for them and a negative impact on the Israeli People.

All Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of Israel's settler colonial project. Settler colonial projects are aggressive by nature. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians did not leave their homes and properties because Israel said please.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are confusing personal property laws with the laws governing statehood and sovereignty. Let's stick to the topic. In a time, before the Armistice of Mudros, the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (later to become known as the HoAP or the Palestinian Black Hand) were respected and protected.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression and to return to their homes and properties.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means. That is a false interpretation of the law.

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.” (BAN KI-MOON, former UN Secretary-General)

The use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination is not terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is NOT a blanket truth. But in any event, it does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Israel already is actualized under self-determination. And the Arab Palestinian rejected the participation in the creation of self-governing institutions. The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

Most Respectfully,
R

The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

You post that a lot but you have never clarified what you think it means and how it applies to the Palestinians.

 

[toastman]

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

Some terminology becomes irrelevant and even obsolete because their purpose has transmuted from any value as definitive or informative → to → something political and argumentative. The example here, wherein the phrase "settler-colonial project" has been turned from meaning → a foreign effort on behalf of an exploring power that develops in places where "needy settlers" establish themselves and setup a permanence → asserts self-determination on their own behalf (NOT on the behalf of the exploring power) → into → meaning fictitious exploring power that controls and exploits a movement for its own economic and commercial gain.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) generates these negative stories in order to walk over their opposition and to assume a status far beyond that for which they are worthy.

You surely view this conflict through Israel's lens.

(COMMENT)

The lens I see through amount to the five political perspectives used by the HoAP; they are the radical (far left), liberal (left), moderate (middle), conservative (right), and Reactionary (far right). The HoAP do not really have laws through which justice can be focused dispensed. The formal rules that carry the sanction of the international community are NOT able to meet the criteria necessary for the Arab Palestinians. WHY! Because the HoAP see no value in any law that does NOT have a positive outcome for them and a negative impact on the Israeli People.

All Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of Israel's settler colonial project. Settler colonial projects are aggressive by nature. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians did not leave their homes and properties because Israel said please.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are confusing personal property laws with the laws governing statehood and sovereignty. Let's stick to the topic. In a time, before the Armistice of Mudros, the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (later to become known as the HoAP or the Palestinian Black Hand) were respected and protected.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression and to return to their homes and properties.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means. That is a false interpretation of the law.

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.” (BAN KI-MOON, former UN Secretary-General)

The use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination is not terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is NOT a blanket truth. But in any event, it does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Israel already is actualized under self-determination. And the Arab Palestinian rejected the participation in the creation of self-governing institutions. The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

Most Respectfully,
R

The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

You post that a lot but you have never clarified what you think it means and how it applies to the Palestinians.

That’s because you can’t read

 

[RoccoR]

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

In recent times, I've never seen more compelling evidence that the Arab Palestinian people are disconnected from the Principles of International Law (as the first basic concept) and the need to be developing connections and Relations that form Co-operation with the Israelis (as the second basic concepts) as a matter of ethics and morality.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP), and their respective support base, have generally altered the face of that was once a people having a legitimate complaint territorial dispute. Yet the deliberate attempt to

◈ Putting politics and political solutions front and center,
◈ Giving prevention an uncontested home,
◈ Leveraging the UN’s three pillars:→

✦ Human Rights,
✦ Peace and Security,
✦ Development of their communities—in a mutually reinforcing way.​

In the combined territories (West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Jerusalem) the HoAP have systematically pushed a mental eradication of political freedoms through the means of bombardment by totalitarian Islamic regimes, accomplished through both ideology and terror.

One thing strongly suggested by Allied Powers (now pro-Israeli powers) attempts to preserve a hegemony for morality (existing outside the moralities harbored by the Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, Asymmetric Fighters and such) in some guise is that the “dirty hands” problem cannot be quarantined as a problem arising only in the pro-Arab Palestinian political arena. It is just that the HoAP makes no effort to engage in negotiations to resolve the differences in territorial and sovereignty matters. In fact, while Israel and the "Quartet" (United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia) may not be perfect, they spent a majority of its efforts attempting to bring the parties in conflict to the peace table. Whereas, the HoAP spent a majority of its time promoting some variation of the Three No's (no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations).

The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

You post that a lot but you have never clarified what you think it means and how it applies to the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The clarification rests with the fact that the Arab Palestinians make no effort at all to enjoin the International Laws. What they do attempt to do is make the audience believe that much of what they say is some sort of law when, in fact, it is not.

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Every State shall settle its international disputes with other States
by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Load of hooey.

The only offers the Palestinians have ever received is for them to surrender, give up land and other rights.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Oh, what nonsense.

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Load of hooey.

The only offers the Palestinians have ever received is for them to surrender, give up land and other rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that is true. Can you give me an example of a Peace Negotiation wherein the Arab Palestinians had to relinquish sovereignty...

I am not even aware that the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty anywhere... at any time...

Page 208 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
border control. lnt'llaw. A country's physical manifestation of its territorial sovereignty, by which it regulates which people and goods may enter and leave. - As a practical matter, border controls are often used to contain plant and animal diseases, fight terrorism, and detect the movement of criminals.

Page 1523 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
sovereign state. (17c) 1. A state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject. 2. A political community whose members are bound together by the tie of common subjection to some central authority, whose commands those members must obey. Also termed independent state. Cf. client state, nonsovereign state under STATE.

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. the principle that each nation
answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger
international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so.
Sovereign states are thus conceived as hermetically sealed units, atoms
that spin around an international orbit, sometimes colliding, sometimes
cooperating, but always separate and apart." ​

When and where did the Arab Palestinian meet the criteria?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh, what nonsense.

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Load of hooey.

The only offers the Palestinians have ever received is for them to surrender, give up land and other rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that is true. Can you give me an example of a Peace Negotiation wherein the Arab Palestinians had to relinquish sovereignty...

I am not even aware that the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty anywhere... at any time...

Page 208 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
border control. lnt'llaw. A country's physical manifestation of its territorial sovereignty, by which it regulates which people and goods may enter and leave. - As a practical matter, border controls are often used to contain plant and animal diseases, fight terrorism, and detect the movement of criminals.

Page 1523 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
sovereign state. (17c) 1. A state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject. 2. A political community whose members are bound together by the tie of common subjection to some central authority, whose commands those members must obey. Also termed independent state. Cf. client state, nonsovereign state under STATE.

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. the principle that each nation
answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger
international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so.
Sovereign states are thus conceived as hermetically sealed units, atoms
that spin around an international orbit, sometimes colliding, sometimes
cooperating, but always separate and apart." ​

When and where did the Arab Palestinian meet the criteria?

Most Respectfully,
R

You believe that sovereignty begins with a government or a state. Your past with government employment has fogged your vision on this. It is true that there are sovereign governments/states. However, these are merely extensions of where the sovereignty actually lies. Sovereignty belongs in the hands of the people. They are the ones with the right to establish a government and declare their state without external interference. They do not need to get permission from foreign powers.

It is the people in a defined territory who are the sovereigns of that territory. They have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty, The right to territorial integrity. No foreign power has the authority to violate those rights. Israel is a foreign power violating those rights.

ASEN 2013: Karma Nabulsi - The 'Treasure' of Revolutions: A Tradition of Thought and Practice.

 

[rylah]

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

Oh, what nonsense.

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Load of hooey.

The only offers the Palestinians have ever received is for them to surrender, give up land and other rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that is true. Can you give me an example of a Peace Negotiation wherein the Arab Palestinians had to relinquish sovereignty...

I am not even aware that the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty anywhere... at any time...

Page 208 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
border control. lnt'llaw. A country's physical manifestation of its territorial sovereignty, by which it regulates which people and goods may enter and leave. - As a practical matter, border controls are often used to contain plant and animal diseases, fight terrorism, and detect the movement of criminals.

Page 1523 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
sovereign state. (17c) 1. A state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject. 2. A political community whose members are bound together by the tie of common subjection to some central authority, whose commands those members must obey. Also termed independent state. Cf. client state, nonsovereign state under STATE.

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. the principle that each nation
answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger
international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so.
Sovereign states are thus conceived as hermetically sealed units, atoms
that spin around an international orbit, sometimes colliding, sometimes
cooperating, but always separate and apart." ​

When and where did the Arab Palestinian meet the criteria?

Most Respectfully,
R

You believe that sovereignty begins with a government or a state. Your past with government employment has fogged your vision on this. It is true that there are sovereign governments/states. However, these are merely extensions of where the sovereignty actually lies. Sovereignty belongs in the hands of the people. They are the ones with the right to establish a government and declare their state without external interference. They do not need to get permission from foreign powers.

It is the people in a defined territory who are the sovereigns of that territory. They have the right to self determination without external interference. The right to independence and sovereignty, The right to territorial integrity. No foreign power has the authority to violate those rights. Israel is a foreign power violating those rights.

ASEN 2013: Karma Nabulsi - The 'Treasure' of Revolutions: A Tradition of Thought and Practice.

Talk about external interference...

Is that why instead of independence Arabs attempted to establish control of an Arabian royalty,
and keep marching under the flag of invading Caliphates?

 

[watchingfromafar]

Define terrorism and explain how Israel is partaking in it today

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Israel Is Killing Children Asleep In Their Homes. Humans. Not Numbers. Again.

The reign of terror, which we help fund, goes on. In the last two days of airstrikes over the open-air prison that is Gaza, where two million beleaguered people, almost half of them children, are packed and trapped, Israel has killed at least 34 Palestinians and injured more than 111. Many of the victims were children. The dead included eight members of the Sawarkah family - three adults, five kids - killed around midnight as they slept in their modest home without running water or electricity. The only survivor of the slaughter of the Sawarkahs was a month-old girl named Marah; her mother, father, aunt and siblings were all buried in the rubble. A relative, Taleb Mesmeh, said that when people heard the explosions, "We never expected (they'd target) a civilian home that looked like any normal house.” The retrieved bodies "were torn into pieces, and there was blood everywhere," he said. “This is Israel targeting children inside their homes.” Then he began picking some children's school uniforms from the rubble. "This is Mo’ath's school uniform," he wailed. "She was still in first grade. What did she do to be killed?”
Israel Is Killing Children Asleep In Their Homes. Humans. Not Numbers. Again.

In Strike That Killed 5 Children, Israel Said It Took Out Gaza Militant. Now It Isn’t Sure.
Nov 15, 2019

The Israeli military said it has begun an investigation into who was actually killed in an airstrike that Palestinians said caused the deaths of eight civilians.
In Strike That Killed 5 Children, Israel Said It Took Out Gaza Militant. Now It Isn’t Sure.

27 July 2019, 7:31 pm
UN: Number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2018 highest in 4 years
A UN report released Friday said that in 2018 Israel killed 56 Palestinian children — the largest number since Israel and Hamas fought a war in the Gaza Strip in 2014.

In the report to the Security Council, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said Israeli troops injured nearly 2,700 children “in the context of demonstrations, clashes and search and arrest operations,” according to Reuters.
UN: Number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2018 highest in 4 years

I have cataloged hundreds (100's) of Palestinian children killed by IDF troops or snipers

note: I am just answering a posters question to me
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

My gift to Tel Aviv

just kidding
-

 

[toastman]

Define terrorism and explain how Israel is partaking in it today

Thursday, November 14, 2019

Israel Is Killing Children Asleep In Their Homes. Humans. Not Numbers. Again.

The reign of terror, which we help fund, goes on. In the last two days of airstrikes over the open-air prison that is Gaza, where two million beleaguered people, almost half of them children, are packed and trapped, Israel has killed at least 34 Palestinians and injured more than 111. Many of the victims were children. The dead included eight members of the Sawarkah family - three adults, five kids - killed around midnight as they slept in their modest home without running water or electricity. The only survivor of the slaughter of the Sawarkahs was a month-old girl named Marah; her mother, father, aunt and siblings were all buried in the rubble. A relative, Taleb Mesmeh, said that when people heard the explosions, "We never expected (they'd target) a civilian home that looked like any normal house.” The retrieved bodies "were torn into pieces, and there was blood everywhere," he said. “This is Israel targeting children inside their homes.” Then he began picking some children's school uniforms from the rubble. "This is Mo’ath's school uniform," he wailed. "She was still in first grade. What did she do to be killed?”
Israel Is Killing Children Asleep In Their Homes. Humans. Not Numbers. Again.

In Strike That Killed 5 Children, Israel Said It Took Out Gaza Militant. Now It Isn’t Sure.
Nov 15, 2019

The Israeli military said it has begun an investigation into who was actually killed in an airstrike that Palestinians said caused the deaths of eight civilians.
In Strike That Killed 5 Children, Israel Said It Took Out Gaza Militant. Now It Isn’t Sure.

27 July 2019, 7:31 pm
UN: Number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2018 highest in 4 years
A UN report released Friday said that in 2018 Israel killed 56 Palestinian children — the largest number since Israel and Hamas fought a war in the Gaza Strip in 2014.

In the report to the Security Council, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said Israeli troops injured nearly 2,700 children “in the context of demonstrations, clashes and search and arrest operations,” according to Reuters.
UN: Number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2018 highest in 4 years

I have cataloged hundreds (100's) of Palestinian children killed by IDF troops or snipers

note: I am just answering a posters question to me
-

Now if only you could prove that Israel actually targets civilians....

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today Posting #15050 •
⁜→ watchingfromafar, et al,

How should we go about determining or judging whether such arguments or presentations like these are reasonable - versus - unreasonable?

In the last decade, or so, a number of discussion group members has, without question, taken issue or
strenuously objected to my position on this or that perspective I've taken concerning the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. I have tried to take their opposing points of view into consideration without becoming involved in an exchange directed against the critic rather than the position they are maintaining. And those of you that have, from time to time, observed → I have revised, clarified or simply expunged the position argued as often as I have put-up my dukes and stood my ground. Some of the engagements I resolved by means of repairing and improving the presentation of a concept or an alternative view. In a few cases, where I thought I was fighting a losing battle pertaining to the issue, I simply faded away from that particular contest; not because I thought I was wrong, but because I saw nothing was to be gained by further fisticuffs. In most of the discussions here I am not trying to win but merely amplify a view on a particular subject → giving indisputable examples of as to the fallacies presented by the opponent.

This is one of those borderline topics (minors → as a special class of victims in conflict) where little is to be gained. Why, because there has never been (recorded in history) a major conflict or extended insurgency in which innocent minors have not suffered without regard to the outcome.

UN: Number of Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2018 highest in 4 years

I have cataloged hundreds (100's) of Palestinian children killed by IDF troops or snipers

(COMMENT)


Once you get past the roadblock that to defend the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in this action is not morally reprehensible, THEN the keys to the argument are able to be played out.

There are two fallacies made here. Surprising → given so few words ( only 10 - to - 13), depending on how you count, are involved.

◈ The Fallacy leads to perception or observations that deviate from “reality.”

✦ In a conflict, minors (children) are generally perceived to be "innocent."​

✦ The death of a child is perceived to be always wrong.​

◈ The Fallacy leads to a judgmental outcome that deviates from “reality.”

✦ The killer of a child is always wrong.​

So first we must test this. Is the premise correct:

Pupils say the terrorists whose names adorn their schools become their 'role models.'
In the Palestinian Authority, however, the situation is somewhat different. There, dozens of schools are named for murderers. A list compiled by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) finds 31 schools named for terrorists and Nazi collaborators, thereby "presenting murderers who targeted civilians as role models for Palestinian ‎children."
SOURCE: Over 30 Palestinian schools named for terrorists •

One of the more popular names for schools is the namesake: • Dalal al-Maghribi • Dalal al-Maghribi [a member of Fatah • Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)] was responsible for an attack that resulted in the death of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

It would appear that the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) (Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters) condone the use of children in both the offensive role (as in the Gaza Border role) and the hostile target role (as in kidnap and murder victims). To argue these roles is a losing proposition as much for the anti-HoAP as it is for the pro-HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Some terminology becomes irrelevant and even obsolete because their purpose has transmuted from any value as definitive or informative → to → something political and argumentative. The example here, wherein the phrase "settler-colonial project" has been turned from meaning → a foreign effort on behalf of an exploring power that develops in places where "needy settlers" establish themselves and setup a permanence → asserts self-determination on their own behalf (NOT on the behalf of the exploring power) → into → meaning fictitious exploring power that controls and exploits a movement for its own economic and commercial gain.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) generates these negative stories in order to walk over their opposition and to assume a status far beyond that for which they are worthy.

You surely view this conflict through Israel's lens.

(COMMENT)

The lens I see through amount to the five political perspectives used by the HoAP; they are the radical (far left), liberal (left), moderate (middle), conservative (right), and Reactionary (far right). The HoAP do not really have laws through which justice can be focused dispensed. The formal rules that carry the sanction of the international community are NOT able to meet the criteria necessary for the Arab Palestinians. WHY! Because the HoAP see no value in any law that does NOT have a positive outcome for them and a negative impact on the Israeli People.

All Israeli settlers are necessary, integral, and active members of Israel's settler colonial project. Settler colonial projects are aggressive by nature. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians did not leave their homes and properties because Israel said please.

(COMMENT)

Again, you are confusing personal property laws with the laws governing statehood and sovereignty. Let's stick to the topic. In a time, before the Armistice of Mudros, the civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (later to become known as the HoAP or the Palestinian Black Hand) were respected and protected.

The Palestinians have the right to resist this aggression and to return to their homes and properties.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means. That is a false interpretation of the law.

“Nothing can justify terrorism — ever. No grievance, no goal, no cause can excuse terrorist acts.” (BAN KI-MOON, former UN Secretary-General)

The use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination is not terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is NOT a blanket truth. But in any event, it does not apply to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Israel already is actualized under self-determination. And the Arab Palestinian rejected the participation in the creation of self-governing institutions. The conflict is perpetuated by a political pressure that resists the application of the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (1970 A/RES/25/2625).

Most Respectfully,
R

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means.

Interesting, what would you suggest?

 

[RoccoR]

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

This is not a simple question, especially for you. It requires the focus on the key points that give meaning to the discussion. You (and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner) do not that the focus.

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means.

Interesting, what would you suggest?

(COMMENT)

First

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State: (A/RES/3314 XXIX) Resolution 3314 is NOT a law. It is a signal concept dictionary. Hence it's named/title is Definition of Aggression.

For an act of "Aggression" to occur, there MUST be at least two "STATES" to the conflict. In this case we parties have:

◈ The Arab Palestinians of the disputed territories.

◈ The Israelis with an established state.
​

Second:

Can Palestine be considered a "State." Not everyone agrees.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_01009.PDF

Thus, in the absence of clear irrefutable evidence of Palestine’s existence as a state and taking into account the lack of an international consensus in this regard, both quantitative and qualitative, the Court cannot assert that there is such a state at this point in time. (/s/ Professor Malcolm N Shaw QC)
https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_01017.PDF

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Oh, what nonsense.

• Seven Times Palestinians Rejected Peace •

Load of hooey.

The only offers the Palestinians have ever received is for them to surrender, give up land and other rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not so sure that is true. Can you give me an example of a Peace Negotiation wherein the Arab Palestinians had to relinquish sovereignty...

I am not even aware that the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty anywhere... at any time...

Page 208 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
border control. lnt'llaw. A country's physical manifestation of its territorial sovereignty, by which it regulates which people and goods may enter and leave. - As a practical matter, border controls are often used to contain plant and animal diseases, fight terrorism, and detect the movement of criminals.

Page 1523 Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.)
sovereign state. (17c) 1. A state that possesses an independent existence, being complete in itself, without being merely part of a larger whole to whose government it is subject. 2. A political community whose members are bound together by the tie of common subjection to some central authority, whose commands those members must obey. Also termed independent state. Cf. client state, nonsovereign state under STATE.

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. the principle that each nation
answers only to its own domestic order and is not accountable to a larger
international community, save only to the extent it has consented to do so.
Sovereign states are thus conceived as hermetically sealed units, atoms
that spin around an international orbit, sometimes colliding, sometimes
cooperating, but always separate and apart." ​

When and where did the Arab Palestinian meet the criteria?

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still on Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that the Palestinians have no rights.

 

[RoccoR]

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

Again, I never said that the "Arab Palestinians have no rights." And I don't believe the Israelis carry that as a political policy.

You are still on Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that the Palestinians have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not even sure that you can deduce such a position from what I wrote. You raise that issue when you don't have anything constructive to say.

We were not even talking about Arab Palestinian Rights. But since you brought it up, the Arab Palestinians cannot invoke a right of any kind, at the expense of a right of another. As humanity goes, both being human and both being equal, rights become a moot point.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Again, I never said that the "Arab Palestinians have no rights." And I don't believe the Israelis carry that as a political policy.

You are still on Israel's unsubstantiated talking point that the Palestinians have no rights.

(COMMENT)

I'm not even sure that you can deduce such a position from what I wrote. You raise that issue when you don't have anything constructive to say.

We were not even talking about Arab Palestinian Rights. But since you brought it up, the Arab Palestinians cannot invoke a right of any kind, at the expense of a right of another. As humanity goes, both being human and both being equal, rights become a moot point.


Most Respectfully,
R

the Arab Palestinians cannot invoke a right of any kind, at the expense of a right of another.

Whose rights would the Palestinians violate and what rights would that be?

Again, I never said that the "Arab Palestinians have no rights."

You have an excuse for every Israeli violation of Palestinian rights. Your premise is that Israel cannot violate Palestinian rights because they don't have any.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

This is not a simple question, especially for you. It requires the focus on the key points that give meaning to the discussion. You (and I don't mean this in a derogatory manner) do not that the focus.

This is absolutely correct. But the "right to resist aggression" is not a blanket right to use any and all means.

Interesting, what would you suggest?

(COMMENT)

First

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State: (A/RES/3314 XXIX) Resolution 3314 is NOT a law. It is a signal concept dictionary. Hence it's named/title is Definition of Aggression.

For an act of "Aggression" to occur, there MUST be at least two "STATES" to the conflict. In this case we parties have:

◈ The Arab Palestinians of the disputed territories.

◈ The Israelis with an established state.
​

Second:

Can Palestine be considered a "State." Not everyone agrees.

View attachment 312882
https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_01009.PDF

Thus, in the absence of clear irrefutable evidence of Palestine’s existence as a state and taking into account the lack of an international consensus in this regard, both quantitative and qualitative, the Court cannot assert that there is such a state at this point in time. (/s/ Professor Malcolm N Shaw QC)
https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2020_01017.PDF

Most Respectfully,
R

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State:

Are you saying that the Palestinians cannot be aggressive because they are not a state.

 

[RoccoR]

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

You twist commentary around like a pretzel.

the Arab Palestinians cannot invoke a right of any kind, at the expense of a right of another.

Whose rights would the Palestinians violate and what rights would that be?

(COMMENT)

The "Rights" that you like to lean upon are spread across a wide range of international conventions (observance of human rights, freedoms, humanitarian, legal and political). But in general, we discuss the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).; assuming we are not directly engaged in a discussion about sets of Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Armed Conflicts at Sea, Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and the Statutes of the various International Courts.

These "Rights" apply equally to all signatories that are bound by them; including the Israelis and Palestinians of the disputed territories.

Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.


Rights dominate modern understandings of what actions are permissible and which institutions are just. Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as many now see it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done.
SOURCE: •.First published Mon Dec 19, 2005; substantive revision Mon Feb 24, 2020 •

​

Again, I never said that the "Arab Palestinians have no rights."

You have an excuse for every Israeli violation of Palestinian rights. Your premise is that Israel cannot violate Palestinian rights because they don't have any.

(COMMENT)

First, I don't usually discuss "excuses." I (quite frequently) do discuss the justification, application and the activation of certain "rights" and "obligations." But I seldom discuss "excuses" (especially with pro-Arab Palestinians). I cannot recall ever discussing "excuses" in this forum.

Second, I do not recall ever discussing any applications wherein the premise contained: "Palestinian rights because they don't have any." That would be "invalid" and "unsound."

And in the third place, it is the Arab Palestinians that have systematically and continually whined and complained about the issue of "rights" over the last 100 years (+).

Israel does not generally discuss accusations and (so-called) violations claims made by the Arab Palestinians. Israel has, relative to certain complaints and accusations, made factual statements or expressed their intent on specific actions. But the Israelis generally do not mount a defense as a matter of an open forum.

Most Respectfully,
R