Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews
⁜→ Hollie, et al,
(COMMENT)

This is just one example (of many) to the Arab Palestinians violating, as they have since early on in the conflict,

◈ The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.​

​

◈ When a choice is possible, the military objective to be selected must be the one that presents the least danger to civilians as set forth in Article 57(3) of Additional Protocol I.​

​

◈ The prohibition of attacks directed against any civilian (outlined in Article 7, Rome Statutes).​

​

In terms of justice and acceptable behaviors, the Arab Palestinians have no real integrity. And the international community will gradually learn the true nature of the hostile Arab Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?

 

[RoccoR]

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

Not only are the Arab Palestinians violating laws on criminal and terrorist act, but they are (almost daily) in violation of International Human Rights Law when they encourage and incite activities that places national security in peril, or disrupts public order, or places public health in harm's way.

The Arab Palestinians have a callous and reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life.

Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?

(COMMENT)

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

Today (relative to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem) after Treaties between the parties were concluded and permanent international boundaries were established, that brought a permanent peace, the Arab Palestinians continued a systematic armed struggle, attacking primarily targets that can be easily overcome because they do not have military defenses (hospitals, schools, shopping centers, restaurants, buses, and other soft targets) → murdering men. women and children.

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

The Arab Palestinians, even today, conduct such asymmetric operations → Criminal Acts directed against the Jewish State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the Israeli population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs | MEMRI.

Palestinian Activist Calls for Terrorist Attacks | MEMRI

The Hamas terror group in Gaza is attempting to salvage its public image after one of its leading members was caught on camera telling Palestinians to “attack every Jew on planet earth.”

​

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

SOURCE: S/RES/1624 (2005)
​

​

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;​

​

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Not only are the Arab Palestinians violating laws on criminal and terrorist act, but they are (almost daily) in violation of International Human Rights Law when they encourage and incite activities that places national security in peril, or disrupts public order, or places public health in harm's way.

The Arab Palestinians have a callous and reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life.

Why do you always assume that the Palestinians are always the aggressor?

(COMMENT)

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

Today (relative to the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and Jerusalem) after Treaties between the parties were concluded and permanent international boundaries were established, that brought a permanent peace, the Arab Palestinians continued a systematic armed struggle, attacking primarily targets that can be easily overcome because they do not have military defenses (hospitals, schools, shopping centers, restaurants, buses, and other soft targets) → murdering men. women and children.

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

The Arab Palestinians, even today, conduct such asymmetric operations → Criminal Acts directed against the Jewish State of Israel with the intention of → or calculated to → cause death or serious bodily injury to the civilian population, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities, the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate the Israeli population and to compel a government or an international organization to do (or to abstain from doing) some act that furthers the criminal objective.

The Sons of Palestine Were Born to Blow up Their Enemies, Die as Martyrs | MEMRI.

Palestinian Activist Calls for Terrorist Attacks | MEMRI

The Hamas terror group in Gaza is attempting to salvage its public image after one of its leading members was caught on camera telling Palestinians to “attack every Jew on planet earth.”

​

​

1.Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:​

​

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;​

​

(b) Prevent such conduct;​

​

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;​

​

​

SOURCE: S/RES/1624 (2005)​

​

​

​

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.​

​

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.​

​

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:​

​

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;​

​

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.​

​

​

SOURCE: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) (1976)​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

According to who?

Links?

 

[RoccoR]

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

It really does not pay to talk to you.

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

According to who?
Links?

(COMMENT)

I gave you examples and links. I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts. And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. Then you turn around and ask for it again.

As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents (from the Global Terrorism Database) by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law (or any combination thereof).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

It really does not pay to talk to you.

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

According to who?
Links?

(COMMENT)

I gave you examples and links. I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts. And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. Then you turn around and ask for it again.

As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents (from the Global Terrorism Database) by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law (or any combination thereof).


Most Respectfully,
R

I haven't heard from the IRA, the FLN, and the ANC lately.

Did they lose?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.

 

[Hollie]

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.

The Zionists never went to ''Palestine'' to attack anyone. Your skewed version of history reeks of ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

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

It really does not pay to talk to you.

It is NOT a matter of what I "assume." It is an established pattern in history of criminal behaviors.

According to who?
Links?

(COMMENT)

I gave you examples and links. I gave you examples of very recent incitement attempts. And examples were given of the confessions by the Hostile Arab Palestinians. Then you turn around and ask for it again.

As far as the "history" goes, I gave you a list of 97 Terrorist Incidents (from the Global Terrorism Database) by various Hostile Arab Palestinian factions on last Sunday at 7:12 PM in Posting #64, of the Israeli-Arab war - tactics, intent and morality Topic. Each incident was a violation of Criminal, Customary or International Humanitarian Law (or any combination thereof).


Most Respectfully,
R

I haven't heard from the IRA, the FLN, and the ANC lately.

Did they lose?

A rather ignorant (and false) attempt at comparison.

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: In the late 14th Century, Jews were invited to immigrate to the Ottoman Empire (especially) from France where they were persecuted by King Charles for the property and wealth. The Jewish people and Muslims alike were rescued brought back to the Ottoman Empire (early 15th Century) by the Admiral (Ottoman Empire) Kemal Reis, Commander of the Turkish Navy. The Jewish and Muslims had been expelled by various European Regimes.

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, at the San Remo Convention (1920) determined it was time to establish a National Home for the Jewish People. To that end, the Allied Powers decided to implement the Balfour Declaration and with it, they embedded the requirement in Article 4 of the British Mandate (a mandate to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home). And, with that, in Article 6 of the British Mandate, the Mandatory Power was to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage.

The Jewish People DID NOT ATTACK the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine or its inhabitance. Very clearly, the Jewish were invited to immigrate → with a very clear intention that they were to help in reconstituting their National Home. It could not have been made plainer.

In case there were those that did not understand the British interpretation of their own "White Paper" the following salient points were made.

[From Paragraph 45 of the UK History of Administration 2 October 1947 (A/AC.14/8)] :

In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on 13 February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:​

• “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

• “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

• “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”

(∑)

The idea suggesting that the Jewish People invaded the Palestinians is false information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion and obscure the truth.

The Arab Palestinians declined to assist the High Commissioner in the governance of the Territory under the Mandate. Thus, by default, the Governing Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: In the late 14th Century, Jews were invited to immigrate to the Ottoman Empire (especially) from France where they were persecuted by King Charles for the property and wealth. The Jewish people and Muslims alike were rescued brought back to the Ottoman Empire (early 15th Century) by the Admiral (Ottoman Empire) Kemal Reis, Commander of the Turkish Navy. The Jewish and Muslims had been expelled by various European Regimes.

No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

You act like the Palestinians went to Europe to attack the Zionists not the Zionists going to Palestine to attack the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, at the San Remo Convention (1920) determined it was time to establish a National Home for the Jewish People. To that end, the Allied Powers decided to implement the Balfour Declaration and with it, they embedded the requirement in Article 4 of the British Mandate (a mandate to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home). And, with that, in Article 6 of the British Mandate, the Mandatory Power was to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage.

The Jewish People DID NOT ATTACK the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine or its inhabitance. Very clearly, the Jewish were invited to immigrate → with a very clear intention that they were to help in reconstituting their National Home. It could not have been made plainer.

In case there were those that did not understand the British interpretation of their own "White Paper" the following salient points were made.

[From Paragraph 45 of the UK History of Administration 2 October 1947 (A/AC.14/8)] :

In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on 13 February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:​

• “The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

• “The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

• “His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish immigration in any of its categories.”

(∑)

The idea suggesting that the Jewish People invaded the Palestinians is false information deliberately spread in order to influence public opinion and obscure the truth.

The Arab Palestinians declined to assist the High Commissioner in the governance of the Territory under the Mandate. Thus, by default, the Governing Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.



Most Respectfully,
R

Very clearly, the Jewish were invited to immigrate

By foreign fuckers who had no sovereignty over the land.

And besides, immigrate is a misnomer.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The Allied Powers assumed "all rights and title." Not the habitual inhabitants.

​

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

SOURCE: Treaty of Peace with Turkey Signed at Lausanne (July 24, 1923)
​

Very clearly, the Jewish were invited to immigrate

By foreign fuckers who had no sovereignty over the land.

(COMMENT)

True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA). But that was a decision for the Allied Powers to make. It was not prohibited by the Treaty. And the Arab Palestinians were NOT parties to the Treaty.

Governmental responsibilities and duties were outside the Arab Palestinian influence → as by 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The attempt was summarily rejected by the Arab Palestinians. And that position remained in place through 1948, when they rejected when asked to avail themselves to provide authoritative information and other assistance as the Palestine Commission may seek.

There is an argument to be made here. While the habitual inhabitants, formerly under the effective control of the OETA, had feet on the ground, they did not have any political claim to the territory. The habitual inhabitants did have "civil and religious" rights. Civil Rights, while not codified, were understood to included real estate and private personal property ownership. Religious Rights, again not codified, were understood to include the freedom to practice any religion.

And besides, immigrate is a misnomer.

(COMMENT)

Yes, well, I'm not sure you understand the terminology. Immigration is defined and permitted/prohibited by domestic law. The International Community is not involved with issues under the domestic jurisdiction.

Nationalist Movement: Zionism (49)
Originally an international effort to create a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. The Tirst Zi(^nist Congress met under the leadership
of Theodor Herzl in 1897. For many years, Zionism remained a minority Jewish view. Ihe majority (assimilationists) were satished with citizenship in the countries of their birth, especially in Western Europe and the Americas. After Adolf Hitler's murder of millions of Jews during World War II, Zionism received new support. The creation of the state of Israel in 1948 fulfilled the Zionist dream of a Jewish state. Today, Zionists promote political, economic, financial, and military support for Israel, and the immigration and resettlement
of Jews in Israel.

SOURCE: The International Relations Dictionary • 3d Edition • Page 40 • © 1988 by Jack C. Piano and Roy Olton • ABC-CLIO Inc • 130 Cremona, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 931 16-191 I
​

I suppose you are trying to make the point that Israel is a subdivision of Palestine. Well, that rock won't fly. This would be a variation on your theme that Israel has no borders/boundaries (internationally recognized demarcations). That would be wrong. And I don't believe you will find an International Law that says otherwise.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?

Besides just having the guns to do it.

 

[Hollie]

True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?

Besides just having the guns to do it.

Your emotional outbursts aren't helpful.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Palestine is a political construct. And there is no universal understanding that a political construct is permanent.
...................................................................Slovenia,
...................................................................Croatia,
...................................................................Macedonia,
Example: Yugoslavia no longer exists = Bosnia,
..................................................................Serbia,
..................................................................Montenegro,
..................................................................Herzegovina

True, the Allied Powers did not attempt to extend sovereignty over the formerly under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
Besides just having the guns to do it.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers established the Mandate Government - and there is NO reason why - The Allied Powers can NOT disestablish the Mandate Government. But the Allied Powers did not destroy Palestine, the remainder has just transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed. It evolved into a new entity. It may not be the entity (the outcome) that many wanted, but Israel is a product of Self-Determination. Conflict (Arab League Aggression) altered the original desired outcome.

In 1950, just as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (March 1950) annexed the West Bank - in the same year, China did a very similar thing to when it annexed Tibet (October 1950). It is hard to say as to whether Jordan gave China the Idea or if the reverse is true. It could be the case that the strategy of independently developed (not likely but still possible).

AND, not all that long ago (March 2014), the Russian Federation annexed Crimea.

While there are examples that the international community says is "illegal" --- it does not change the fact that in contemporary times, these changes in political constructs still occur.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

but Israel is a product of Self-Determination.

You have not answered that question when I asked it before.

You just ducked it.

 

[RoccoR]

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

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
Besides just having the guns to do it.

You have not answered that question when I asked it before.

You just ducked it.

(COMMENT)

Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."

I cannot answer your invalid question. It must be reasonable. Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" (AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) was destroyed (usage undefined).

I did not "duck the question." I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
Besides just having the guns to do it.

You have not answered that question when I asked it before.

You just ducked it.

(COMMENT)

Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."

I cannot answer your invalid question. It must be reasonable. Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" (AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) was destroyed (usage undefined).

I did not "duck the question." I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.

Most Respectfully,
R

You always try to apply pretzel logic to deny the facts. The fact is that Palestine has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Of course you don't see a problem if you believe that the Palestinians have no rights. Foreign aggression is a major violation.

 

[Hollie]

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

So then. where did they get the authority to destroy Palestine?
Besides just having the guns to do it.

You have not answered that question when I asked it before.

You just ducked it.

(COMMENT)

Like I said: "The Government of Palestine was NOT destroyed."

I cannot answer your invalid question. It must be reasonable. Your question presupposes that "the territory formerly under the Mandate" (AKA: Palestine by the Order in Council) was destroyed (usage undefined).

I did not "duck the question." I cannot help • that you were not able to recognize the answer.

Most Respectfully,
R

You always try to apply pretzel logic to deny the facts. The fact is that Palestine has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Of course you don't see a problem if you believe that the Palestinians have no rights. Foreign aggression is a major violation.

You have made no supportable case that “Palestine” has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Indeed, that’s really just a hysterical rant absent any objective commentary.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Yes our friend "Hollie" is correct.

You have made no supportable case that “Palestine” has been destroyed by foreign powers.

Indeed, that’s really just a hysterical rant absent any objective commentary.

(COMMENT)

If anything, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization (the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people) who is responsible for retarding the Human Development of the people in the territories.

Most Respectfully,
R