Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:

Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.

Still no answer, huh?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jeff Halper - Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine | Pluto Live

 

[P F Tinmore]

Mainstreaming the Extreme: How Meir Kahane’s Vision of Jewish Supremacy Conquered Israeli Politics

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Janna Jihad (youngest journalist in the world) : The Inalienable Right of Return (EN. VO)

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nathan Thrall, Peter Beinart, and "A Day in the Life of Abed Salama"

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Human Rights, Occupation & Democracy

 

[Hollie]

 

[P F Tinmore]

APARTHEID THEN AND NOW A Conversation with South African and Palestinian Anti Apartheid Activists

 

[P F Tinmore]

"We need to decolonise our understanding of antisemitism." - Robert Cohen

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Understanding "Apartheid" ...
⁜→ et al,

PREFACE:

​

​

BLUF: It is one matter when the uneducated try to use the situation in South Africa to explain - by example - the situation between the separation of Israel from the West Bank/Gaza Strip. It is an entirely different matter altogether when the pro-Arab Palestinians, knowing that it is a fallacy of a false analogy. (See: Logical Fallacy.)

APARTHEID THEN AND NOW A Conversation with South African and Palestinian Anti Apartheid Activists

(COMMENT)

Apartheid has a specific legal definition used by the International Criminal Court (ICC); not that you should find the ICC particularly trustworthy... (See: Article 7 (2h), Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court).

◈ In the case of South Africa, the two racially different populations were all within one sovereignty and kept apart by the single sovereign power (South Africa).​

​

◈ In the case of the Israeli-Arab Palestinian Conflict, there are no real racially motivated reasons for the separation between enforcement of immigration measures of Israel which denies (non-citizens) Arab Palestinians access to cross into Israel.​

Similarly, the restriction on Arab Palestinian movement within Area "C," as agreed upon in the Oslo II Accord, wherein Israel has full civil and security control by agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO); the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory (undefined) that is liberated (from whom). Israel's border security protocols and immigration policies are not dissimilar in nature to most nations. Most nations, as does Israel, generally follow Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR):

​

Article 12​

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.​

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.​

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.​

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.​

Now, it is understood by many, within the pro-Arab Palestinians movement, there is no single voice. Some factions:

◈ Consider Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit. ​

​

◈ Consider Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit.​

​

◈ Consider Palestine to be based on pre-June 4th 1967 border with East Jerusalem as its Capital​

Restrictions pertaining to border-crossers protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Many of the general restrictions are based on the necessity to protect against the activities of those factions that either:

◈ Consider Armed struggle to be the only way to liberate Palestine.​

​

◈ Consider there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​

​

I am just one voice and do not speak for the Israelis. However, I can see just in this very small thumbnail view that the State of Israel, which protects the Jewish National Home (JNH), is in peril from the Jihadists, Fedayeen Activists, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters that are the composition of the various hostile factions protected (and even idolized) by the Arab Palestinian People.

The current cry by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) that is supported by the Arab Palestinian people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

​

Terror, Terror, Terror – remains Fatah’s motto for 2021​

Now, by and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the HoAP operations that unlawfully and intentionally use of explosives and other lethal devices in, into, or against various defined public places with intent to kill or cause serious bodily injury, or with intent to cause extensive destruction of the public place. By and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the Hostile Arab Palestinian operations that have kidnapped, or murdered innocent Israelis. By and large, the international community has been relatively silent on the indiscriminate use of rockets, mortars, and incendiary devices against civilian targets. And the international community (including the ICC) has been relatively silent on HoAP openly violating Customary and International Humanitarian Law pertaining to Protected persons (Arab Palestinians) who commit an offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power (Israelis), or seriously damages the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them.

While there are many, many other violations I might speak to, the one that has given rise to barriers on peace negotiation is the weakness of the international community to speak on the issues prohibit HoAP advocacy that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“CCPR”). This, by itself, raises questions of misfeasance, malfeasance, and non-feasance on the part of both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the ICC.

ALL these snippets pour fuel on the fire as to why it is necessary (in the eyes of many) for Israel to hold extra-territorial jurisdiction on the potential threats its nation faces just from the adjacent HoAP.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

I am just one voice and do not speak for the Israelis.

You could have fooled me.

 

[P F Tinmore]

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who normally live in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.

 

[toastman]

◈ On the other hand, the Arabs of Palestine will not accept:

Indeed, a foreign, settler colonial project kicking them out of their country.

What other people would, or should, accept that?

Give me some names.

Still no answer, huh?

Still no answer on how Palestinians are “defending” themselves against Israel, huh?

 

[RoccoR]

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

PREFACE: It is interesting that you should pick that clause. I notice that you are using A/RES/181 II as a source document.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who normally live in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.

(COMMENT)

What you are saying is exactly true.
https://www.newsbeast.gr/files/1/2017/12/1923_lausanne_treaty.pdf

The Treaty of Lausanne → Section II • Nationality → Article 30 - does say: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem were in territory Annexed by Jordan, and essentially became sovereign Jordanian Territory. Jordan was the first country after The Great War (WWI) that claimed the territory - becoming the de facto "successor state." Transfer complete.​

​

Yes, again you are correct. International Law does make two indelible points:

◈ "arbitrarily deprived" → As an outside observer, I do not see any people, that present a threat of one sort or another being denied entry. Were any of these people born in "Israel" or otherwise granted "Israeli citizenship?" Do any of these people present a threat to Israel? Were any being denied immigration for a qualifying reason under the law? This is not "arbitrary."​

​

◈ "right to enter his own country" Again, is an Israeli Citizen or other qualified candidates, being denied entry into their country in which they hold citizenship?​

​

I am fairly sure (there is a high probability) that you can come up with an Arab Palestinian (over the age of 70) that "might" make a case for citizenship. But remember, most countries expect loyalty in citizenship. It is up to the Israelis to determine the validity of the claim or the degree loyalty they have when applying. How many Arab Palestinians can honestly say that they have not participated in activities punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

It is up to the Israelis, but I see a cultural behavior pattern that idolizes and commemorates Hostile Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians politically support and reward known Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters as they conduct "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

PREFACE: It is interesting that you should pick that clause. I notice that you are using A/RES/181 II as a source document.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Interesting, according to international law (and reiterated in the Treaty of Lausanne, the Palestine Citizenship Order of 1925, and Resolution 181) all of the people who normally live in the territory of a successor state, shall become citizens of that state.

(COMMENT)

What you are saying is exactly true.
https://www.newsbeast.gr/files/1/2017/12/1923_lausanne_treaty.pdf

The Treaty of Lausanne → Section II • Nationality → Article 30 - does say: "Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipso facto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred." The Arab Palestinians of the West Bank and Jerusalem were in territory Annexed by Jordan, and essentially became sovereign Jordanian Territory. Jordan was the first country after The Great War (WWI) that claimed the territory - becoming the de facto "successor state." Transfer complete.​

​

Yes, again you are correct. International Law does make two indelible points:

◈ "arbitrarily deprived" → As an outside observer, I do not see any people, that present a threat of one sort or another being denied entry. Were any of these people born in "Israel" or otherwise granted "Israeli citizenship?" Do any of these people present a threat to Israel? Were any being denied immigration for a qualifying reason under the law? This is not "arbitrary."​

​

◈ "right to enter his own country" Again, is an Israeli Citizen or other qualified candidates, being denied entry into their country in which they hold citizenship?​

​

I am fairly sure (there is a high probability) that you can come up with an Arab Palestinian (over the age of 70) that "might" make a case for citizenship. But remember, most countries expect loyalty in citizenship. It is up to the Israelis to determine the validity of the claim or the degree loyalty they have when applying. How many Arab Palestinians can honestly say that they have not participated in activities punishable under Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention?

It is up to the Israelis, but I see a cultural behavior pattern that idolizes and commemorates Hostile Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians politically support and reward known Jihadist, Fedayeen Activist, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Followers, and Asymmetric Fighters as they conduct "criminal acts" directed against Israel, intended or calculated to create "terror" in the minds of the citizenry.

Most Respectfully,
R

How many Palestinians did not live in peace with their neighbors when they returned home?