Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Our forum is a type of unstructured debate. And in any debate, we present our arguments and listen to opposing points of view.

I post from a wide variety of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.

(COMMENT)

In our debates (generally a set of deductive arguments), we have a very wide and diverse set of participants representing a multitude of perspectives.

As long as your sources have some legitimate (both Sound and Valid - S&V) point of view (POV) the origin of perspective is unimportant (nearly irrelevant). A characteristic of our discussions is the attempt at justification for one side or the other → wherein the premises contained are believed to be true.

(OBSERVATION)

In many of our discussions, the premises (statements) contained within the (political) arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical (and truthful) conclusion. Why? Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion (the statements are considered politically contaminated). As an example:

◈ The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS - including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades)(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood) are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true. The argument that HAMAS is "designated" as a "terrorist Organization" by America, Canada, the European Union (27 Member Nations), and Saudi Arabia. ​

This differentiation and lack of universal acceptance creates a just enough controversy as to complicate the meanings of "unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable." And in the case of Israel 'vs' Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) casts a shadow on the meaning of "supporting terrorist organizations."

A similar complication arises in the meaning of the "State of Palestine" and the differentiation and lack of universal acceptance as to the territory the Arab Palestinians claim as sovereign under the banner: "State of Palestine." Who represents the "State of Palestine" and what does it claim as its territory. As an example:

◈ Some officials claim that the Arab Summit in 1974 recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the “sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” and since then the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has represents the State of Palestine at the United Nations, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)."​

​

✦ Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.​

​

✦ The PLO claim by charter that → Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

​

◈ Territory of States -- International Law​

​

✦ TERRITORY DEFINED:  Territory in international law means any area of the earth’s surface which is the subject of sovereign rights and interests.  It is a definite part of the surface of the earth where the state normally exercises jurisdiction over persons or things to the exclusion of another state.​

​

✦ TERRITORY DEFINED:  The domain of a state therefore may be described as:​

✧ Terrestrial​

✧ Fluvial or maritime​

✧ Aerial​

​

This demonstrates the the nature of the gap between the various factions.

( ∑Ω )

◈ The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy.​

​

◈ In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.​

​

There is enough here for any criminal charge to be ambiguous under the general principles of international criminal law.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Jews shoud get off the way..."
she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.

Just that of all people on earth,
everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.

Does it make sense to you?

Israel- The more you know, the less you like.

That is because you refuse to know anything,
that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.

And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.

I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.

See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.

So what does it say about the validity of your position,
if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?

If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
or simply based on a false premise.

And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?

How is this not hypocricy?

or simply based on a false premise.

What false premise are you talking about?

 

[rylah]

"Jews shoud get off the way..."
she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.

Just that of all people on earth,
everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.

Does it make sense to you?

Israel- The more you know, the less you like.

That is because you refuse to know anything,
that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.

And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.

I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.

See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.

So what does it say about the validity of your position,
if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?

If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
or simply based on a false premise.

And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?

How is this not hypocricy?

or simply based on a false premise.

What false premise are you talking about?

That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".

That's just sick.

Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.



No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.

And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"Jews shoud get off the way..."
she sure didn't mean herself and those who agree.

Just that of all people on earth,
everyone should have a say on the Arab-Israeli conflict,
except vast majority of Jews who disagree with her and support Israel.

Does it make sense to you?

Israel- The more you know, the less you like.

That is because you refuse to know anything,
that doesn't come from anti-Israel sources.

And that's why you can't have a sincere discussion.

I post from a wide verity of sources. You people only post stuff out of Israel.

See, your default position is to disregard anything from Israel,
you can't even address me in person, let alone actually discuss anything.

So what does it say about the validity of your position,
if your whole argument against facts, is that they support they support the Israeli side?

If you want to get into personal views here is one of mine.

Jews were not the first people in Palestine nor were they ever the only people there. There is no historic precedence for an exclusive Jewish state.

But you do realize that your personal opinion might be lacking context,
or simply based on a false premise.

And this still doesn't explain how a supposed lack of representation is a justification
for a radical shift to ban and boycott of another minority?

How is this not hypocricy?

or simply based on a false premise.

What false premise are you talking about?

That because Jews were supposedly not the first people or ever the only people in the region,it justifies calling for the elimination of their country. And that even in discussion about the Arab-Israeli conflict, of all the people, lest a radical minority who submits to that narrative, otherwise "Jews should get off the way".

That's just sick.

Entirely homogenous countries are rather exception than the rule,
and no one asked for that, Israel is a very colourful country.



No one uses this excuse to call for elimination of Morocco, or Greece,
and they're not homogenous, only against Israel.

And no where can you quote that in that law or any Israeli law,
this is just something you've made up as a half baked excuse to feed your obsession.

Nice deflection..

 

[P F Tinmore]

In many of our discussions, the premises (statements) contained within the (political) arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical (and truthful) conclusion. Why? Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion (the statements are considered politically contaminated). As an example:

◈ The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS - including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades)(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood) are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true.

Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.

When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.

 

[Hollie]

In many of our discussions, the premises (statements) contained within the (political) arguments CANNOT "guarantee" a logical (and truthful) conclusion. Why? Because the statements are not agreed upon by the parties to the discussion (the statements are considered politically contaminated). As an example:

◈ The premise that the members of the Islamic Resistance Moverment (HAMAS - including its HAMAS has a military wing known as the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades)(a spliter group of the Muslim Brotherhood) are members of a "terrorist organization" → is not universally accepted as true.

Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.

When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.

Your ''hysterical twoofs'' are a hoot.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: When we examine the image and actions of the Arab Palestinians, to find the (near) truth our observations must emphasize the Arab Palestinians as an interacting population of organisms → perceiving entire patterns and organizational configurations, not merely individual components.

Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.

When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian approach to achieve their political aspirations and goals appears to make sense when examined up close or over short segments in time; but when we back away and examine the entire organism at once, or examine the timeline over many years and many decades, we see why it fails, and why it unravels. Everything about the situation in the political world of the Arab Palestinians is illusionary.

Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives" (meaning the Arab Palestinians) is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do → holding peace hostage as a means of achieving their political objectives. It is an illusion because they seemingly appear to justify their actions, that if used by anyone else, would be judged an unlawful act and intentional use of lethal devices against various public places with intent to kill or cause injury (intentionally targeting civilians or indiscriminate fire).

The attempt to marginalize the actions of the Arab Palestinians is an attempt to cast a cloak over the fact the Arab Palestinians engage in criminal acts intended to provoke a response out of the Israelis for political purposes are → in any circumstances → "unjustifiable." The Arab Palestinian attempt to divert attention away from their criminal acts, as if the actions are legitimate → given special consideration of some political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify their actions.

(ASSOCIATED POINT)

Israel is NOT a "colonial power." The claim or implication that Israel is a colonial power is a form of "Fallacy of Definition." "Colonial Power" is intended to describe a member of a given set of nations that exercises control over a dependent area or people that retains political ties and loyalty to the parent nation. Neo-colonialism (post-WWII) is the set of economic and political practices by which previous colonial powers strive to maintain their domination over a decolonized country. It also designates cultural predisposition to promote or support such practices.

The P F Tinmore application of the term "colonial power" is simply much too broad. The Report of the Special Committee (C-24) on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2020 (A/75/23) demonstrated an expanded international concern on a new level (≈ 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) under review):

◈ None of them were located in the Middle East.​

​

✦ African Region has 1 NSGT​

✦ Atlantic-Caribbean Region has 9 NSGTs​

✦ European Region has 1 NSGT​

✦ Pacific Region has 6 NSGTs​

​

​

◈ Of the four Administrating Powers in the world, Israel is not one of them.​

​

✦ France​

✦ America​

✦ The United Kingdom​

✦ New Zealand​

No matter how the pro-Arab Palestinian Movements twist, expand, or exaggerate the intent of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries, nothing in the Middle East fits the definition of a colonial holding or NSGT. Any attempt to suggest that there is any NSGT or colonial hold in the Middle East Region in connection with the Arab Israeli conflict is a deliberate intended to deceive the discussion group.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: When we examine the image and actions of the Arab Palestinians, to find the (near) truth our observations must emphasize the Arab Palestinians as an interacting population of organisms → perceiving entire patterns and organizational configurations, not merely individual components.

Denigrating the natives is a standard practice for colonial powers. Name calling is always a part. The native Indians defending their land were called savages. Terrorist is the current nomer for natives defending their land.

When I say that terrorist is merely political name calling, I am using an historic truth.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinian approach to achieve their political aspirations and goals appears to make sense when examined up close or over short segments in time; but when we back away and examine the entire organism at once, or examine the timeline over many years and many decades, we see why it fails, and why it unravels. Everything about the situation in the political world of the Arab Palestinians is illusionary.

Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives" (meaning the Arab Palestinians) is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do → holding peace hostage as a means of achieving their political objectives. It is an illusion because they seemingly appear to justify their actions, that if used by anyone else, would be judged an unlawful act and intentional use of lethal devices against various public places with intent to kill or cause injury (intentionally targeting civilians or indiscriminate fire).

The attempt to marginalize the actions of the Arab Palestinians is an attempt to cast a cloak over the fact the Arab Palestinians engage in criminal acts intended to provoke a response out of the Israelis for political purposes are → in any circumstances → "unjustifiable." The Arab Palestinian attempt to divert attention away from their criminal acts, as if the actions are legitimate → given special consideration of some political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious, or other nature that may be invoked to justify their actions.

(ASSOCIATED POINT)

Israel is NOT a "colonial power." The claim or implication that Israel is a colonial power is a form of "Fallacy of Definition." "Colonial Power" is intended to describe a member of a given set of nations that exercises control over a dependent area or people that retains political ties and loyalty to the parent nation. Neo-colonialism (post-WWII) is the set of economic and political practices by which previous colonial powers strive to maintain their domination over a decolonized country. It also designates cultural predisposition to promote or support such practices.

The P F Tinmore application of the term "colonial power" is simply much too broad. The Report of the Special Committee (C-24) on the Situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2020 (A/75/23) demonstrated an expanded international concern on a new level (≈ 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) under review):

◈ None of them were located in the Middle East.​

​

✦ African Region has 1 NSGT​

✦ Atlantic-Caribbean Region has 9 NSGTs​

✦ European Region has 1 NSGT​

✦ Pacific Region has 6 NSGTs​

​

​

◈ Of the four Administrating Powers in the world, Israel is not one of them.​

​

✦ France​

✦ America​

✦ The United Kingdom​

✦ New Zealand​

No matter how the pro-Arab Palestinian Movements twist, expand, or exaggerate the intent of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries, nothing in the Middle East fits the definition of a colonial holding or NSGT. Any attempt to suggest that there is any NSGT or colonial hold in the Middle East Region in connection with the Arab Israeli conflict is a deliberate intended to deceive the discussion group.



Most Respectfully,
R

Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives" (meaning the Arab Palestinians) is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do →

Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points. Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?

 

[Hollie]

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?

From acts of Islamic terrorism.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: What makes you so sure that your perception of reality actually corresponds to the actual reality? The Arab Palestinians always believe that they were victims of aggression. What makes the Arab Palestinian think they are anymore exempt from Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention when it comes to punishment for:

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?​

​

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit espionage intended to harm the Occupying Power?​

​

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power​

​

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit intentional offenses that have caused the death?​

Here we see a sleight of hand, where our friend makes a truthful claim sound real yet not. As if "denigrating the natives" (meaning the Arab Palestinians) is an act of criticizing them unfairly for their intention. That "intention" being → the use of a violent method → to intimidate and to forcibly compel the State of Israel or its citizenry into the adoption of some act. As if it is unfair to label the Arab Palestinians for what they are in what they do →

Holy smokescreen, Batman! So many Israeli talking points. Palestinians only act against Israeli aggression. They do not operate outside their own borders, and only attack illegal settlers.

So where does this terrorist name calling shit come from?

(QUESTIONS)

◈ Where does Israel communicate their "talking Point?"​

​

◈ Give me an example of an act of "Israeli aggression?"​

​

◈ Please define Arab Palestinian borders?​

​

◈ Under what authority do the Arab Palestinians assume sovereignty over the territory?​

​

◈ Are settlement in Area "C" illegal if full Israeli civil and security control extend across Area "C?"​

​

◈ Did the Arab Palestinians exercise Article XV Resolution of Disputes or the principle that States shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered?​

​

ARTICLE XV RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13, 1993​

1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles. or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above.​

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties.​

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an Arbitration Committee.​

(COMMENT)

Principally, the fundamental dispute begins with the Arab Palestinian insistence that the British-Franco Treaty of 1920 (Article 1) that established the boundaries between the territories under the French mandate of Syria and Lebanon on the one hand and the British mandates of Mesopotamia and Palestine creates some obligation to the Arab Palestinians. This is not true. The Treaty which set the boundary did not create any linkage between the Mandatories and the various indigenous populations, nor did it create any self-governing institutions and place it in the hands of the local inhabitants.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

 

[Hollie]

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

What sovereign Pali land area is occupied by Israel?

link?

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

(COMMENT)

I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013​

​

◈ List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel. 7 October 2012​

Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised. But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue. Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...

Choose your poison...


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I can't wait to see this one.

I hope they post it on Youtube.

Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice: A Panel Discussion

Join us to explore how to fight back against antisemitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice.

act.jewishvoiceforpeace.org

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

(COMMENT)

I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013​

​

◈ List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel. 7 October 2012​

Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised. But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue. Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...

Choose your poison...


Most Respectfully,
R

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013

Thanks for the link. A great read.

Let's start at the top. Here are the first two.

• Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.

• Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.

 

[Hollie]

I can't wait to see this one.

I hope they post it on Youtube.

Dismantling Antisemitism, Winning Justice: A Panel Discussion

Join us to explore how to fight back against antisemitism and against those that seek to wield charges of antisemitism to undermine progressive movements for justice.

act.jewishvoiceforpeace.org

You and the two other people who watch it should be quite the audience.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I'll try to make this short.

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013

• Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.

(COMMENT)

◈ A/RES/15/1514 14 December 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples

✦ Proclamation 2.

All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.​

​

Israel does not have any requirement, stated implicitly or explicitly, to surrender its Right to Self-Determination to grant the Hostile Arab Palestinians in support of the Arab League Agressor Force some special privilege over and above that which is granted to "all peoples" (principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples). [(since you always ask) See:“People” vs. “Peoples” for Ethnic Groups and Nationalities]​

​

✦ Proclamation 5.

Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.​

Israel does not have to surrender any territory covered by International Accords, or International Treaties to any Trust and Non-Self-Governing entity not having full civil and security control over that territory.​

​

✧ The 2005 unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip effectively abandon the Gaza Strip into the hands of whatever Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) faction filling the void and the destiny of HoAP self-determination.​

​

✦ Proclamation 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.​

Israel has the UN Charter Article 51 authority to take such defensive action as may be is necessary to protect its Article 2(4) territorial integrity or political independence from actual threats and demonstrated military (Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence) action by whatever opposing force.​

◈ A/RES/25/2625 24 October 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States

✦ Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

​

✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.​

​

✧ PA: “We are prepared to sacrifice … we will sacrifice our ‎children"‎ | PMW Translations​

​

✧ PA Mufti: Sharia’h obligates every Muslim to wage Jihad ‎against what the PA calls “the thieving Jews”‎ | PMW Translations​

​

✧ Palestinian scholars issue a fatwa against "normalization"​

​

✧ Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.​

​

✧ There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​

​

✧ Declassified A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948​

​

• The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.​

• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.​

• The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.​

Ω The primary goal of the UN and the International Laws pertaining to the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict is to secure the peace. Since the time Israel declared its independence, time after time, the first shots fired or the build-up of forces along the border constituting an imminent threat has been on the part of an Arab Party to the conflict (less the Palestinians). There is no indication today, any more than there has been in over a half-century, that the Arab Palestinians have any intention of working towards a peaceful resolution.

The Arab Palestinians have been, for decades, demanding money from donor nations by maintaining the conflict and gaining sympathy to pour more and more annual funding into Arab Palestinian extortionist. There is no reason to assume that any withdrawal from the West Bank and Jerusalem would have any impact any different than that demonstrated by the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

• Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.

(COMMENT)

Any attempt to use A/RES/194 (III) is entirely bogus. There is no indication whatsoever that the Arab Palestinians actually wished to comply with the codicil that the "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace." Not then and not now. The threats records in the first answer (supra) make that very plain.

Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Rule 132 Return of Displaced Persons, essentially does not apply. Every single Arab Palestinian has had citizenship from one or more governments claiming to be in control. And the age of the "habitual residence:" has to be over 72 years. Even if you were born today, the life expectancy of an Arab Palestinian is 73 years. I can't imagine what the life expectancy was for someone born in 1948.

The term "Refugee" is defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees which does not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance. is Convention does not apply to any person who has voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of the country of his nationality; or has acquired a new nationality, and enjoys the protection of the country of his new nationality. As you know, almost all Hostile Arab Palestinians claim to have Palestinian citizenship.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) Article 12(2) deals with the Right to be "free to leave any country, including his own." Article 12(4) states: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. I've not heard of a case of "Arbitrary denial." However, a denial can be issued for the protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others. [See Article 12(3)] Hmmm, that pretty much denies all of those that supported HAMAS, and any of the other designated terrorist groups. And unlike 95% of the General Assembly Resolutions, the CCPR entry into force 23 March 1976.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

✧ Declassified A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948• The Arabs of Palestine will never recognise the validity of the extorted partition recommendations or the authority of the United Nations to make them.• The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.• The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition. The only way to establish partition is first to wipe them out — man, woman and child.

A must read. Thanks for the link.
Declassified A/AC.21/10 16 February 1948

What part of this do you disagree with? It merely asserts the Palestinian's rights particularly the right to territorial integrity.

(c) General Carlos P. Romulo, Head of the Philippines delegation, on Wednesday made a very strong and courageous speech denouncing partition declaring: “At the behest of my Government, the Philippine Republic regrets its inability to approve of or participate in a solution of the Palestine problem that would involve the encouragement of political disunion and the enforcement of measures that would amount to the territorial mutilation of the Holy Land.’

But on Saturday and in the absence of General Romulo there were two Philippines Delegates, each claiming different instructions — one to vote against partition as instructed by the head of his delegation, the other supporting partition according to fresh instructions from his Government. It is an established fact that strong pressure was put on the Philippines Government by the United States Government and, according to reliable information, the United States Government threatened the Philippines Government that it will not grant it the loan it is asking for if its delegation fails to support partition. In this way the Arabs lost the Philippines vote.​

This speaks for itself.

 

[P F Tinmore]

✦ Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

For years you have been dancing around the issue of whose territorial integrity is being violated.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: You make these accusations, but never give an example, let alone a list.

◈ Arab Palestinians who commit an offense that is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power?

Occupying powers have obligations and restrictions. Israel violates virtually all of them.

The Palestinians respond to those violations. And, facing all of these violations, the Palestinians are expected to sit on their hands.

(COMMENT)

I have seen such lists produced by the pro-Arab Palestinian activities but I have never been asked to discuss one; by you.

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013​

​

◈ List of International Law Violations by the State of Israel. 7 October 2012​

Just so I don't get overwhelmed (Old Man Syndrome), pick one or two that you really want to discuss, and we will proceed from there.

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪​

Also, remember, that criminal or terrorist activity is NOT justifiable under any circumstances, but especially when the "Dispute Resolution Processes" have not been exercised. But for the time being, we will dispense with that issue. Let's get to something you think is of significant substance...

Choose your poison...


Most Respectfully,
R

◈ A/HRC/22/NGO/6 11 February 2013

Thanks for the link. A great read.

Let's start at the top. Here are the first two.


• Violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination as codified in Res. 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV), and recognized by the ICJ in its decision on the Wall.

• Violation of customary law, human rights norms (A/RES/194/III, § 11 and customary IHL as codified by the ICRC in 2005, Rule 132, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 12(2)) by prohibiting the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes.

As you know, almost all Hostile Arab Palestinians claim to have Palestinian citizenship.

Palestinians are a nationality who have the right to their national territory. Children of Palestinians have the Palestinian nationality by birth. Who has the right to take away the nationality and citizenship of anybody?