Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[Hollie]

The article goes on to describe the decreasing support amongst both Israelis and Palestinians for a Two State solution

Solution to what? What is the problem?

Is THIS the "never answered question"??? If it is -- I'm disappointed. The "problem" is a bunch of JORDANIAN citizens isolated in land that Jordan GAVE AWAY -- because they were tired of their "Palestinian problem"...

And what I WANT is a fair solution to that problem that doesn't FORCE Palis into a nation state that they dont WANT or trust just to get their own JUSTICE and self-governance.

Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood".. What's REQUIRED is self-determination and self-rule.. Had this been done with a City State or Emirates model 3 decades ago -- there would be vibrant self-rule and prosperity for the Palestinians today.

Read that last sentence again.. You and others are TOO HUNG UP ON the concept of "statehood".

As you know, I have posted many Palestinian videos (that you have never watched). How many mention creating a new state?

Ah, yes. The endless YouTube video collection.

Have you considered demanding that the Pals watch them? They should be your target audience as you know what’s best for them.

 

[flacaltenn]

(QUESTIONS)

◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?

Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.

Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.

You live in some alternate reality?

A line of goons with guns does not make a border.

A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..

Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government. A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...

I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

Because of what I just explained to you.. Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune.. Read what I said again.. Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt.. This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem.. They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt".. There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..

You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure.. They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin.. THAT is the natural Arab culture.. And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...

Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.

Oooooh.. I LOVE "never answered questions".. Hit me... LOL...

Sure.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

What was the turn-out in that election? Is this BIG enough for Hamas to speak FOR ALL Palestinians? The poll I cited was LONG SINCE that election you're hung up on and does not change the fact that the MAJORITY of Palestinians take a dim view of HAVING a "Palestinian Authority" as a govt concept... No matter WHICH faction gets more votes in an election..

Fact is -- 1.35Mill Palis were REGISTERED to vote in 2006. About 850,000 turned out.. That's 60% of ELIGIBLE voters.. And it's not hard to imagine that in GAZA -- people were AFRAID NOT to vote.. I don't call that a mandate for Hamas to speak for ALL Palestinians.. Do you? The vote totals for parliament were won by Hamas over Fatah by a margin of only about 30,000 out of 820,000 of the votes cast for the 2 parties.. That's also 'not a mandate".,.

Only reason Hamas GAINED 70 or so seats is because they BOYCOTTED the previous election...

Not the same picture you just painted -- is it??? You're hung up on a LOT of things -- like a 14 yr old election that was PROBABLY the last one Palis will ever have..

Here's an interesting gem from my research for the paper....

On the major single concerns governing voting, 37% considered it to be Safety and Security, while 25% favoured Decreased Corruption.[38]

An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:

Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition
Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%
Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%
Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%
Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemploymentSupport for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%
Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%
Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%
Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[39]

Really should be paying more attention to Pali politics Tinmore and LESS to academics or protesters who never had to fix anything.. You can vote AGAINST folks for a lot of reasons.. Like we Americans, the Palis had to choose from 2 evils...

 

[P F Tinmore]

(QUESTIONS)

◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, who is being systematically oppressed and dominated?
◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, what one racial group over any other racial group or groups?
◈ So, within the boundaries of Israeli Sovereignty, with the intention of maintaining that what regime?

Uhhh, Israel does not have boundaries.

Uhhh, Islamic terrorist franchises can show you where the boundaries are.

You live in some alternate reality?

A line of goons with guns does not make a border.

A "nation" without a government and a history of FAILED govts doesn't have a border either..

Palestinians are extremely leery of ceding power to a central government. A lot of egg-headed intellectuals can yack all they want -- but it's NOT LIKELY that Palestinians will ever agree to BEING a nation-state.. Actually pretty smart given the Arab track record of "national govts"...

I don't slight the Palis one bit for rejecting a national govt...

The never answered question.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

Because of what I just explained to you.. Palis not happy with the graft/corruption of Fatah, not willing to radicalize to the Hamas tune.. Read what I said again.. Palis do not TRUST or want a "nation-state" with a powerful central govt.. This is why all your head-banging academic and activist videos wont FIX this problem.. They've never willingly got behind ANY KIND of "national govt".. There's no Palestinian govt to negotiate with..

You're wasting your time because you do NOT understand their preferred social/organizational structure.. They are SELF IDENTIFIED by tribes and families and places of origin.. THAT is the natural Arab culture.. And when Arab countries ADOPT a nation state, they end up with ruthless, barbaric dictators as the ONLY MEANS to suppress conflict along tribal, familial, place of origin lines...

Perhaps if you would answer my never answered question, that would answer your questions.

Oooooh.. I LOVE "never answered questions".. Hit me... LOL...

Sure.

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

What was the turn-out in that election? Is this BIG enough for Hamas to speak FOR ALL Palestinians? The poll I cited was LONG SINCE that election you're hung up on and does not change the fact that the MAJORITY of Palestinians take a dim view of HAVING a "Palestinian Authority" as a govt concept... No matter WHICH faction gets more votes in an election..

Fact is -- 1.35Mill Palis were REGISTERED to vote in 2006. About 850,000 turned out.. That's 60% of ELIGIBLE voters.. And it's not hard to imagine that in GAZA -- people were AFRAID NOT to vote.. I don't call that a mandate for Hamas to speak for ALL Palestinians.. Do you? The vote totals for parliament were won by Hamas over Fatah by a margin of only about 30,000 out of 820,000 of the votes cast for the 2 parties.. That's also 'not a mandate".,.

Only reason Hamas GAINED 70 or so seats is because they BOYCOTTED the previous election...

Not the same picture you just painted -- is it??? You're hung up on a LOT of things -- like a 14 yr old election that was PROBABLY the last one Palis will ever have..

Here's an interesting gem from my research for the paper....

On the major single concerns governing voting, 37% considered it to be Safety and Security, while 25% favoured Decreased Corruption.[38]

An exit poll conducted by Near East Consulting on 15 February 2006 on voters participating in the 2006 PA elections revealed the following responses to major concerns:

Support for a Peace Agreement with Israel: 79.5% in support; 15.5% in opposition
Should Hamas change its policies regarding Israel: Yes – 75.2%; No – 24.8%
Under Hamas corruption will decrease: Yes – 78.1%; No – 21.9%
Under Hamas internal security will improve: Yes – 67.8%; No – 32.2%
Hamas government priorities: 1) Combatting corruption; 2) Ending security chaos; 3) Solving poverty/unemploymentSupport for Hamas' impact on the national interest: Positive – 66.7&; Negative - 28.5%
Support for a national unity government?: Yes – 81.4%; no – 18.6%
Rejection of Fatah's decision not to join a national unity government: Yes – 72.5%; No – 27.5%
Satisfaction with election results: 64.2% satisfied; 35.8% dissatisfied[39]

Really should be paying more attention to Pali politics Tinmore and LESS to academics or protesters who never had to fix anything.. You can vote AGAINST folks for a lot of reasons.. Like we Americans, the Palis had to choose from 2 evils...

The fact is that Hamas won the majority of seats in parliament in 2006. That wasn't just for Gaza. That was for all of Palestine. Sure Hamas won because Fatah sucked so bad.

Hamas and Fatah joined together and formed the Unity Government of March 2007. That was the last legally constituted government in Palestine.

So, the never answered question remains unanswered:

Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Podcast Ep 22: Why Israel isn’t as powerful as it wants us to think

https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-08/shirhevereipodcast.mp3

 

[rylah]

In relation to land boundaries, there is no corpus of law especially for resolving boundary disputes, and recourse is made to the rules for acquiring title to territory in international law (see territory, acquisition of ).

How did Israel acquire title to territory?

By being the only nation vested with sovereignty in the country.
The tile never ceased, merely re-constituted.

Now, establishment of an Arab state in that land, requires that acquisition of title
from the sovereign nation, which is exactly the way they received autonomy.

P F Tinmore I get your nervous laughter,
but can you actually refute a thing?

Sure, Palestine received title to specific territory, defined by international borders, by post war treaties.

Ok, but this only confirms my post.

From day one, Palestine as a separate territorial unit,
was defined in reference solely to the Jewish nation/Israel.

The "Jewish national home," as defined by the Mandate, was citizenship in Palestine. As Palestinian citizens they could live anywhere in Palestine like the rest of the Palestinians. Israel or a Jewish state were not mentioned.

No where in the mandate does it suggest that.

Citizenship doesn't equal national sovereignty,
yet the term 'national' was specifically set in reference to Jews/Israel.

ART. 7.​

​

​

​

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.​

​

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate

Israel or a Jewish state are not mentioned.

Israel and Jews are synonyms.
The territorial unit 'Palestine' specifically assigned for the Jewish nation.

Was the term 'nation' used in those documents in reference to anyone else?

Palestine was already a defined territory. The Palestinians already had nationality and citizenship. That should not have to be reiterated. It was the Jews who had to be fit in there somehow.

And from day one the territory attached specifically to the Jewish nation.
Exactly why you always evade the question.

Also conveniently forget it all started in response to Arab pogroms, expulsion of the local Jewish community from all their holy cities, and eventual Jewish uprising initiating the Zionist organization as a response.

Since Jewish right to re-constitute sovereignty was signed into international law,
all notions of Jews having to "fit somehow" changed to taking our country back.

But I get it why Arabs still can't get used to the idea,
of losing to a bunch of former dhimmis.

Guess who has to "fit somehow" now?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?

Sure.
Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

(ANSWER)

​

To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​

SOURCE: Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​

(COMMENT)

I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard. I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.

There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?

Sure.
Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

(ANSWER)

​

To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​

SOURCE: Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​

(COMMENT)

I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard. I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.

There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who would have envisioned the Arab Palestinians endorsing terrorism as a form of government?

Sure.
Fatah lost the elections. How/why is it running the West Bank?

(ANSWER)

​

To affirm the right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent national authority under the command of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated. This authority, once it is established, shall enjoy the support of the Arab states in all fields and at all levels;​

SOURCE: Seventh Arab League Summit Conference • Resolution on Palestine • Rabat, Morocco 28 October 1974​

(COMMENT)

I think that the Arab Palestinian support and election of non-state actors engaged in violence and terrorism as a government caught most of the civilized world completely off-guard. I think it was a case of the civilized world not understanding the Arab World's stance on terrorism.

There are numerous incidents in the neighboring states of Arab Palestinian Terrorism.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

Was murdering Olympic athletes 'self-defense'?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?

What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?

What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?

See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?

What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?

See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.

Only one of many, mostly done by Israel.

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

It's pretty clear you wouldn't evade the Olympics massacre,
if you didn't know the answer to that question.

Not to mention how they treat their own.
'Terrorists' is a too noble word for them.

Nice duck.

Is that why you're so afraid
to address the Olympic massacre?

What is the value of after the fact back and forth activities?

See, still afraid to address the Olympic massacre.

Only one of many, mostly done by Israel.

One of many - what?

First set a consistent definition, and stick with it,
then we can discuss your default "but, but Israel" deflections.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Live Virtual Conversation with Juan Cole, Ramadan 2020
Includes a talk on Gaza and his book "Muhammad: Prophet of Peace"

 

[rylah]

Live Virtual Conversation with Juan Cole, Ramadan 2020
Includes a talk on Gaza and his book "Muhammad: Prophet of Peace"

Is that why Mohammedans can't stop murdering each other,
or why they're killed more by their own than anyone else?

There's not even a word for 'peace' in Arabic,
'salam' comes from the same root as 'Islam',
and it means 'submission'...

Which is exactly what they seek to do,
on their quest to colonize several continents.

 

[Hollie]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The "Right of Self-Defense presupposes imminent threat or actual attack by a hostile armed aggressor. The central theme is found in Chapter i, Article 2(4) (pertaining to threat) • and • Chapter VII, Article 51, UN Charter (pertaining to actual attack).

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorist canard?

I know, Palestinians have no rights including the right to defend themselves.

(COMMENT)

Terrorism has been defined since the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism:

View attachment 378755
​

This nonsense about the Israeli "Terrorist Canard" (as in unfounded) is simply reliant on the hope that the reader has a very poor vocabulary and a total lack of understanding pertaining to terrorism - political violence and its true meaning. It is a way for the Hostile Arab Palestinian to appear to defe3nd itself against the truth, without any real supporting evidence at hand.

I do not recall anyone saying that the Palestinians do not have the Right to Self-Defense. In fact, they have the same "Right" to Self-Defense and another entity. You use that approach by saying "Palestinians have no rights" when in fact you know nothing of the sort. It is a Philosophical Facllacy which appeals to feelings of anger, pity, sympathy, and so-on. All entities (as said) have that "Right." But with that "Right" comes the limitation (as most "Right" comes with some limitation) there is "No Justification for Terrorism." But I'm not sure this plays well with the audience in this discussion group.

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what makes Palestinians terrorists besides Israel's name calling?

Actions and behaviors. Even the most simple concepts leave you befuddled.