Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[Hollie]

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

They did in 1972.

Nice duck.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Well I guess it is not so simple to demonstrate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are so innocent.

WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

Nice duck though.

(COMMENT)

I'm talking about recent times.

There is no instant replay. The Arabs of Palestine have never really had any control over any aspect of the territory until the Oslo Accords.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: Well I guess it is not so simple to demonstrate that the Hostile Arab Palestinians are so innocent.

WOW, so much fifth grade name calling.

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

Nice duck though.

(COMMENT)

I'm talking about recent times.

There is no instant replay. The Arabs of Palestine have never really had any control over any aspect of the territory until the Oslo Accords.


Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

They did in 1972.

Nice duck.

Stupid post of the day award!

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

You talk like the Palestinians went to Europe and attacked the Zionists.

They did in 1972.

Nice duck.

Stupid post of the day award!

Another emotional tirade and display of your hurt feelings.

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF:

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

(COMMENT)

We could argue about this all day. It would come to nothing. It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth. But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD. That is more than a Millenium after King David. What importance does that have? It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.

​

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing. On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state." ​

​

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is 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." With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​

​

​

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen. And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​

​

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ Customary and International Humanitarian Law​

​

Geneva Convention I​

Geneva Convention II​

Geneva Convention III​

Geneva Convention IV​

Additional Protocol I to GCIV​

Additional Protocol II GCIV​

Additional Protocol III ​

Hague Convention 1907​

You are correct. Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights." But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others. The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​

​

​

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

This is true in general. But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case. In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​

​

◈ political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​

◈ to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​

◈ to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,​

◈ to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​

◈ to being abandon by Jordan,​

◈ to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​

(Ω)

While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion. In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).

Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF:

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

(COMMENT)

We could argue about this all day. It would come to nothing. It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth. But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD. That is more than a Millenium after King David. What importance does that have? It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.

​

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing. On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state." ​

​

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is 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." With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​

​

​

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen. And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​

​

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ Customary and International Humanitarian Law​

​

Geneva Convention I​

Geneva Convention II​

Geneva Convention III​

Geneva Convention IV​

Additional Protocol I to GCIV​

Additional Protocol II GCIV​

Additional Protocol III​

Hague Convention 1907​

You are correct. Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights." But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others. The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​

​

​

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

This is true in general. But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case. In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​

​

◈ political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​

◈ to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​

◈ to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,​

◈ to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​

◈ to being abandon by Jordan,​

◈ to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​

(Ω)

While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion. In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.

Most Respectfully,
R

But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,

Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?

Put your dancing shoes on.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF:

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

(COMMENT)

We could argue about this all day. It would come to nothing. It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth. But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD. That is more than a Millenium after King David. What importance does that have? It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.

​

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing. On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state." ​

​

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is 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." With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​

​

​

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen. And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​

​

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ Customary and International Humanitarian Law​

​

Geneva Convention I​

Geneva Convention II​

Geneva Convention III​

Geneva Convention IV​

Additional Protocol I to GCIV​

Additional Protocol II GCIV​

Additional Protocol III​

Hague Convention 1907​

You are correct. Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights." But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others. The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​

​

​

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

This is true in general. But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case. In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​

​

◈ political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​

◈ to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​

◈ to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,​

◈ to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​

◈ to being abandon by Jordan,​

◈ to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​

(Ω)

While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion. In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.

Most Respectfully,
R

But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,

Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?

Put your dancing shoes on.

NONE

v/r
R

 

[RoccoR]

The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).

Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.

The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction. It applies to "All Peoples."

v/r
R

 

[Hollie]

The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).

Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.

What foreigners in what location?

Link?

Don’t duck like you usually do.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).

Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.

The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction. It applies to "All Peoples."

v/r
R

Define peoples.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF:

Indeed, Palestine has been occupied since birth.

(COMMENT)

We could argue about this all day. It would come to nothing. It depends on the time in which you determine "Palestine's" Birth. But the Fertile Crescent (the Levant) was not ruled by the Arabs until the early 7th Century AD. That is more than a Millenium after King David. What importance does that have? It only shows that the Arabs were NOT the original indigenous inhabitance of anywhere in the Levant.

​

1) Occupations do not acquire sovereignty.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

An "Occupation" has a role to play in the acquisition of sovereignty, but I recognize that they are NOT one and the same thing. On the other hand, a territory under occupation cannot call itself a "sovereign state." ​

​

"The essence of statehood is sovereignty. It is 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." With the exception of the Gaza Strip and Area "A" of the West Bank, it is not possible for the Arab Palestinians to consider any other place under their sovereign control.​

​

​

2) Occupations do not negate the rights of the people.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

Generally speaking, the list of "Rights" (not further identified) number more than 3 dozen. And while I have had the necessity to use the other Treaties, Laws and Conventions, for the most part, these cover the majority of our issues and are outlined in:​

​

◈ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) Office of the High Commissioner UN Human Rights​

​

◈ Customary and International Humanitarian Law​

​

Geneva Convention I​

Geneva Convention II​

Geneva Convention III​

Geneva Convention IV​

Additional Protocol I to GCIV​

Additional Protocol II GCIV​

Additional Protocol III​

Hague Convention 1907​

You are correct. Effective control over a territory does not negate these "Rights." But these "Rights" do not counter the "rights" of others. The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).​

​

​

3) States do not cease to exist while occupied.​

​

​

(SUB-COMMENT)​

​

This is true in general. But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case. In the case of the West Bank, the territory moved from being a:​

​

◈ political subdivision of the Ottoman Empire, ​

◈ to being under the effective control under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA),​

◈ to being under the Mandate of the League of Nations,​

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,​

◈ to being annexed and brought under the sovereignty of Jordan,​

◈ to being abandon by Jordan,​

◈ to being brought under the effective control of Israel.​

(Ω)

While every single one of your statements is "true" (in general), these factual statements do NOT amount to a correct answer to anything under discussion. In fact, none of these factual statements, either individually or collectively, enhance your arguments in any meaningful way.

Most Respectfully,
R

But for this to be applicable to the Arab Palestinians, they would have had to have been a sovereign state to start with; and that was not the case.

◈ to being occupied by Jordan,

Uhh, what sovereign state did Jordan occupy?

Put your dancing shoes on.

NONE

v/r
R

So then, How did Jordan occupy a territory that was not sovereign? And, why did that territory revert back to Palestinian territory when Jordan released it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The "Right of Self-Determination for the Palestinians" does NOT overturn the "Right of Self-Determination for the Israelis (or vise versa).

Where do foreigners get the right to self determination?

Link?

I look forward to your duck.

What foreigners in what location?

Link?

Don’t duck like you usually do.

Both the Zionists, and the British, called the Zionist project colonialism. Their term not mine. Colonialism is, by definition, foreign control of another territory.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUB-REFERENCE: PEOPLE 'vs' PEOPLES
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Periodically, you ask this question as aan attempt to stump someone. The last time you asked it was in July • Posting #739, RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate.

The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction. It applies to "All Peoples."

Define peoples.

(COMMENT)

Maybe you should bookmark this page.
SEE:
“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

◈ Example: The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: The use of a "dictionary" which is appropriate to the topic is important.

Both the Zionists, and the British, called the Zionist project colonialism. Their term not mine. Colonialism is, by definition, foreign control of another territory.

(COMMENTARY)

All colonialist settlements are established by another country; or foreign power. But NOT ALL settlements established in foreign territory are colonial holdings. In the case of the territory under the Mandate of Palestine in which the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished all "Rights and Title" - the establishment of the Jewish National Home was by immigration invitation. Many people writing on the subject us words of description that at not technically correct in a legalistic sense.

​

Colonialism is the holding and ownership of colonies, or the treating of another country as though it was in fact a colony. Indeed recently the concept has been extended to refer to ‘internal’ colonialism, where the capital or economically dominant part of a country treats a distant region just as it might a genuinely foreign colony. For true colonialism to exist two conditions are necessary. ​

​

◈ The land held as a colony must have no real political independence from the ‘mother country’, but also the relationship must be one of forthright exploitation.​

​

◈ The entire reason for having colonies is to increase the wealth and welfare of the colonial power, either by extracting resources, material or labour from the colony more cheaply than they could be bought on a free market, or by ensuring a market for one’s own goods at advantageous rates.​

​

SOURCE: Europa Publications, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE, United Kingdom, Page 89, © David Robertson 2002​

​

​

​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUB-REFERENCE: PEOPLE 'vs' PEOPLES
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Periodically, you ask this question as aan attempt to stump someone. The last time you asked it was in July • Posting #739, RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate.

The Right of Self-Determination does not make a distinction. It applies to "All Peoples."

Define peoples.

(COMMENT)

Maybe you should bookmark this page.
SEE:
“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities

When you refer to the people of a single ethnic group or nationality, always use the word people.

Peoples is only used in cases when it is necessary to distinguish between ethnic groups within the same geographical or cultural context.

◈ Example: The peoples of the world practice a wide variety of religions.


Most Respectfully,
R

A question from Marlene in Brazil:
How do I use the words persons and peoples? I’ve learned that we say one person, two people and we say peoples for nations. Am I correct?

Hi Marlene. This is a good question. As a general rule, you’re absolutely right

Learning English - Ask about English - 'persons' and 'peoples'

Amy Lightfoot answers a question from Marlene in Brazil and explains when to use the words 'persons' and 'peoples'. Ask about English: 2 March 2010

www.bbc.co.uk

The French are "a People" in France. The British are "a people" in Britain. The Canadians are "a people" in Canada. The Palestinians are "a people" in Palestine. collectively they are the peoples of the world. Each has the right to self determination within their own nation. The French do not have the right to self determination in Britain.