Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

 

[rylah]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?

 

[rylah]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?

Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "Israeli shill"?

How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Battle of World Jewry against Zionism - What Israel Don't Want You to Watch; -

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation

We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.

electronicintifada.net

https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.

Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation

We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.

electronicintifada.net

https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3

(COMMENT)

Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan." Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name. Can you tell me what the plan is called?

Thanking You in Advance,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.

Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation

We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.

electronicintifada.net

https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3

(COMMENT)

Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan." Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name. Can you tell me what the plan is called?

Thanking You in Advance,

Most Respectfully,
R

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Eva Bartlett on Gaza in Crisis - An Eyewitness Report

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.

(COMMENT)

You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.

I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.

But then that is just me...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

The Battle of World Jewry against Zionism - What Israel Don't Want You to Watch; -

A bobmbastic headline
but a false impression.

World Jewry are overwhelmingly Zionist,
including the Jews in America:

80% of US Jews say they are pro-Israel, study finds

including the orthodox community, who are next generation's majority,
and shifting Republican for their conservative values:

How deep is Trump support among US Orthodox Jews? New poll says it’s complicated

What may be the most robust survey of America's most religiously observant Jewish demographic reveals that even within subgroups, there are massive differences in political opinion

www.timesofisrael.com

But I get why you would need to create that false impression
and bet you just posted it for the headline, rather than to discuss anything.

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I admit, you are one up on me. I did not see a public release of any Phased Plan relative to the proposed Annexation.

Podcast Ep 20: Joseph Massad on annexation

We discuss Israel's plans to fully colonize Palestine with the Columbia professor.

electronicintifada.net

https://electronicintifada.net/sites/default/files/2020-07/joseph_massad_ei_podcast.mp3

(COMMENT)

Somehow I've missed something if the "Electronic Intifada" actually reviewed "The Plan." Most of the time, the Israelis give their plans a dynamic code name. Can you tell me what the plan is called?

Thanking You in Advance,

Most Respectfully,
R

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.

In other words:

Another LIE by Abunilie,
based on I say so...

 

[rylah]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?

Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "Israeli shill"?

How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.

I keep asking but there's no response:

P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's "case for Hamas",
you already knew she was what you call "an Israeli shill",
or you just came to that realization after she revealed
something that does't fit your preferred narrative?

What's in it for you to cast off her voice?

 

[P F Tinmore]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?

Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "Israeli shill"?

How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.

I keep asking but there's no response:

P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's "case for Hamas",
you already knew she was what you call "an Israeli shill",
or you just came to that realization after she revealed
something that does't fit your preferred narrative?

What's in it for you to cast off her voice?

I'm sorry. In my haste I was thinking about a different person/video. You were talking about this person.



Now what was your question?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.

(COMMENT)

You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.

I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.

But then that is just me...

Most Respectfully,
R

First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.

Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.

The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out. But if they do, this is what it will be.

If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.

 

[rylah]

flacaltenn can You chip in?

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

P F Tinmore now seems to shift his position 180 degrees in the other direction, and in contradiction to that agreement (and himself) - focusing on independent city states,
based on claims of incompatibility of a unified regional economy.


I think you have much to add on regional economics.

Of course I'll chip in.. I love "real and mature" people debating honestly. But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

But I'm gonna have check in after the couple hours of watching the vids...

Here is an excellent vid from someone who has been there.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

For those who want to dig deeper than sound bites. Of course discussions are always welcome. Palestine at the ICC: Prospects and Limitations

www.usmessageboard.com

Seriously??! the video opens with "the stripes are Nile and Euphrates"...
Why not just go straight with 'bloody matzos', and post the latest Farakhan rant?

I find it very telling, that instead of discussing what the involved people say and actually agree,
you prefer to duck with a clearly biased source with an agenda.

Exactly why you don't deserve to desecrate the land with your presence
you don't deserve to breath her air,
you don't deserve to enjoy her views
you don't deserve do smell her scents,
you don't deserve to taste the fruit of her soil.

Because clearly,
you don't mean well to neither of her inhabitants.

Is that the only thing you have to hang your hat on?

Sad.

I keep asking:

why can't you handle Rudy and Kefah agreeing,
or anyone who's actually involved on both sides?

What's in it for you?

They are both Israeli shills.

Where do you see both sides?

Now Kefah Abukhdeir is an "Israeli shill"?

How fast things turn...when you're full of shit and have no argument.

I keep asking but there's no response:

P F Tinmore, when posting Kefah Abukhdeir's "case for Hamas",
you already knew she was what you call "an Israeli shill",
or you just came to that realization after she revealed
something that does't fit your preferred narrative?

What's in it for you to cast off her voice?

I'm sorry. In my haste I was thinking about a different person/video. You were talking about this person.



Now what was your question?

Ok, I'll repeat the question:

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,
in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

Kefah argues from a religious perspective,
Rudy from historic and socio-political perspectives.

Kefah might not agree that it should be Israeli sovereignty,
but essentially both Rudy and Kefah agree on one-state paradigm.

What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?

And was your sudden shift away from "river to sea" paradigm,
towards independent city-states, a direct response to that agreement?

 

[rylah]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: So, you are basing it on your perception. We call that presumptive evidence.

There is plenty of evidence. You don't need a PhD to figure out what they are going to do.

(COMMENT)

You're not suggesting you have intrinsic evidence supplied by a recording, writing, or other documents, which must be authenticated.

I do not have much faith in Arab Palestinian who provided evidence that depends on a belief, rather than competent and examinable evidence.

But then that is just me...

Most Respectfully,
R

First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.

Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.

The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out. But if they do, this is what it will be.

If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.

Sad, but you keep sounding like a broken record.
Nothing that hasn't been repeated ad nauseam for decades.

But it's not the parrots in their echo chambers who change things,
it's those who have the guts to think for themselves.

Arab-American Researchers: Arab Narratives on Zionism Are False; Israel Most Successful in the ME

Syrian-American human rights activist Ammar Abdulhamid and Egyptian-American researcher Samuel Tadros discussed Zionism and Israel on an August 15, 2019 show on Al-Hurra TV.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You and I simply don't speak the same language.

First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration (suitable conditions) and encourage that immigration.

Starke ’ s International Law (11th ed.), 429–430: ‘Quaere, whether, as claimed by some states, the word “force” used in the United Nations Charter is capable of denoting economic or political pressure, which was alleged to be characteristic of “neo-colonialism”. By way of answer to this claim, it has been objected that it would open a wide door for the
invalidation of treaties concluded at arms length’.
SOURCE: Page 104Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law

General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.
SOURCE: Page 107 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law

Independence → Inasmuch as it excludes subjection to any other authority, and in particular the authority of another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with regard to the liberty of action outside its borders. It is internal independence with regard to the liberty of action within its boundaries’
SOURCE: Page 276 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law

At NO point (I repeat → at no point) did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917.

No matter what News Paper Articles you may dredge-up that uses the words or phrases → "colonize" or "colonial project" → Jewish settlements were (and still are) being created to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.

Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.

The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out. But if they do, this is what it will be.

If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.

(COMMENT)

This is, once again, a totally unsubstantiated claim (plan must be made) with some intent to deprive the Arab Palestinians of some "right" or "privilege" that would counter the original General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) recommendation that was adopted.

Nearly all capitalist societies look for the best possible business arrangement concerning "taxation" and "cheap labor." But to suggest that the Israelis have some plan to hold Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor (implied slave labor) is totally off the rails. (Totally preposterous! and ludicrous...)

While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity. Most businesses operate in a utilitarian fashion. But to express the idea that the Israelis would even consider holding the Arab Palestinians as a "captive source for cheap labor" no matter the form of captivity used to accommodate the exploitation (physical, economic, commercial, or militarily).


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: You and I simply don't speak the same language.

First you have to realize that Israel is, and has always been, a settler colonial project. Its goal is, and has always been, all of Palestine without the Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration (suitable conditions) and encourage that immigration.

​

Starke ’ s International Law (11th ed.), 429–430: ‘Quaere, whether, as claimed by some states, the word “force” used in the United Nations Charter is capable of denoting economic or political pressure, which was alleged to be characteristic of “neo-colonialism”. By way of answer to this claim, it has been objected that it would open a wide door for the​

invalidation of treaties concluded at arms length’.​

SOURCE: Page 104Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​

​

General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 , styled a Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Friendly Relations Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 ), ‘The principle of equal rights and self-determination’ of which refers to colonialism. See also independence.​

SOURCE: Page 107 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law ​

​

Independence → Inasmuch as it excludes subjection to any other authority, and in particular the authority of another State, sovereignty is independence. It is external independence with regard to the liberty of action outside its borders. It is internal independence with regard to the liberty of action within its boundaries’​

SOURCE: Page 276 Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law​

​

​

At NO point (I repeat → at no point) did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917.

No matter what News Paper Articles you may dredge-up that uses the words or phrases → "colonize" or "colonial project" → Jewish settlements were (and still are) being created to protect and preserve the Jewish National Home.

Since it is almost impossible to completely get rid of the Palestinians, a plan must be made. Israel will annex all of the West Bank except for some Palestinian reservations/bantustans. To support the Palestinians, foreign businesses will be built. These businesses will be free to import and export and will be outside the control of the Palestinian for taxation and worker rights, for example. The Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor.

The plan is stillborn so they will probably not roll it out. But if they do, this is what it will be.

If you see it, you can tell me where I am wrong.

(COMMENT)

This is, once again, a totally unsubstantiated claim (plan must be made) with some intent to deprive the Arab Palestinians of some "right" or "privilege" that would counter the original General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) recommendation that was adopted.

Nearly all capitalist societies look for the best possible business arrangement concerning "taxation" and "cheap labor." But to suggest that the Israelis have some plan to hold Palestinians will be a captive source for cheap labor (implied slave labor) is totally off the rails. (Totally preposterous! and ludicrous...)

While very crafty in the way you have expressed the idea, you have intentionally embossed the idea that Israel is condoning some form of slavery or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, enforced labor, or any other form comparable treatment to the same evil gravity. Most businesses operate in a utilitarian fashion. But to express the idea that the Israelis would even consider holding the Arab Palestinians as a "captive source for cheap labor" no matter the form of captivity used to accommodate the exploitation (physical, economic, commercial, or militarily).


Most Respectfully,
R

Keeping in mind we are talking about the Israeli-Arab Palestinian dilemma, the invitation by the Allied Powers, decided upon at the San Remo Convention, the Allied Powers decided to "facilitate Jewish immigration (suitable conditions) and encourage that immigration.

At NO point (I repeat → at no point) did the Allied Powers ever express their actions other than to implement the Balfour Declaration made on 2 November 1917.

The roots of the settler colonial project.