Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Israel has been doing that for decades.

 

[rylah]

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.

Yet international law specifically defines
Israel a re-constitution of an indigenous civilization.

Might not fit your narrative, but that's what it legally says.

And if you define Balfour Declaration as the 'root',
then you simply don't know minimal basic history of the place.

 

[P F Tinmore]

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,

I think you should listen to that again. I think she was quite clear. Some Islamic organizations say Hamas is Haram because they are too nationalist and democratic.

 

[P F Tinmore]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?

I don't see where they agree.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Huh?

 

[P F Tinmore]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[rylah]

In post #91 Kefah explains that "Nationalism is Haram" in Islam,

I think you should listen to that again. I think she was quite clear. Some Islamic organizations say Hamas is Haram because they are too nationalist and democratic.

What threatens you in Rudy and Kefah agreeing?

I don't see where they agree.

Well I did listen again - in 5:31 Kefah Abukhdeir reveals "Nationalism is Haram in Islam".
Rudy has been saying virtually the same all along from various perspectives.

And clearly,
you start twisting around switching positions the moment you realized they agree.


So for the 5th time:

Why are you threatened by Rudy and Kefah agreeing?
What do you get by insisting on polarization?

 

[rylah]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

 

[rylah]

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

Huh?

Indeed, let me help your confusion -

decide:

is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Huh?

Indeed, let me help your confusion -

decide:

is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?

I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.

 

[P F Tinmore]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.

 

[rylah]

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

Huh?

Indeed, let me help your confusion -

decide:

is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?

I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.

Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?

When an Israeli argues for a one state, unified economy,
you go for demanding city state economy.

When and Israeli argues for city Emirates,
you go - one state.

I think you just can't handle agreeing with a Zionist,
thus all the mental twisting.

Can you decide already?

 

[rylah]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.

I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.

They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
since then you play dumb and call them names,
but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.

The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.

But the question remains - why are you so threatened by their agreement?

 

[P F Tinmore]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.

I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.

They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
since then you play dumb and call them names,
but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.

The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.

But the question remains - why are you so threatened by their agreement?

Which one state do they agree on?

 

[rylah]

in post #97 Rudy talks about social structure arguing the same, in favor of Israeli sovereignty.

I can't listen to Rudy anymore. I am out of barf bags. He is definitely in the "there is no Palestine" camp. Now all he has to do is get millions of Palestinians to believe that crap.

But that is your default response,
your default tactic was to misrepresent whatever he says.

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Just curious, why can't you actually address his arguments?

Which part of that dogpile do you want me to address first. That was a long interview.

I have already several times pointed to the specific points,
in both Rudy's video and Kefah's video you've posted.

They agree - both on Hamas and one state,
since then you play dumb and call them names,
but not even once directly addressed what they actually say.

The video posted by you, and you're the only one who evades discussing it.

But the question remains - why are you so threatened by their agreement?

Which one state do they agree on?

They agree on one-state paradigm.

Kefah also explained the incompatibility at the basis of Arab claims.
by revealing that national sovereignty is Haram in Islam.

I don't know if she just let her guard off,
or simply unusually sincere for position,
but you clearly can't disprove that.

So I ask again, for who knows what time:
Why are you so threatened by their agreement?

 

[rylah]

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

Huh?

Indeed, let me help your confusion -

decide:

is unified economy applicable under single sovereignty,
or do you now insist on independent city states just to disagree?

I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.

Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?

When an Israeli argues for a one state, unified economy,
you go for demanding city state economy.

When and Israeli argues for city Emirates,
you go - one state.

I think you just can't handle agreeing with a Zionist,
thus all the mental twisting.

Can you decide already?

Where is my answer OP??
Unified economy, or city states?

One thing is to make big ass claims and run away,
another to actually make a sound argument.

Make your argument.

Or just admit that you have no consistent standard,
beyond default disagreement, regardless of what's said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?

I don't know what he means by that.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: While a City-State and a Bantustan are different, I get your meaning. But there are actual only three City-Staes in the world that are autonomous entities → not administered as a part of another nation. (Singapore, Monaco, Vatican City)

I have always been opposed to the city state (bantustan) theory. We even had a thread about that about a year ago.

(COMMENT)

Not to say it can not happen, but less than Jerusalem (a separate case entirely) the remainder of the territory under the administration of Israel (since 1988 when Jordan totally abandon all its holdings on the West Side of the Jordan River) is not capable of standing alone. The Gaza Strip (HAMAS) has really become a separate entity. It is not really known whether or not it could stand alone. It certainly has the capacity less its self-destructive leadership

(REFERENCING) Truncated Video: A Palestinian Makes a Case for HAMAS...

This is an interesting discussion on the Topic. Well worth the time it talks to review.

It starts from the position that by erecting an infrastructure - of self-governing institutions - that would prevent (not allow) a HAMAS takeover → the West Bank could become its own sovereignty. → That triggers the question: What is wrong with HAMAS?

One of the ideas that floated was that the people of Gaza see more practical benefits passed done to the people that the Arab Palestinians of the West Bank see trickling down from the Ramallah Government.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rylah]

Then why are you now arguing a unified economy is incompatible?

I don't know what he means by that.

Wow you really don't wanna answer that question...
When I argued for a unified economy, your response was:

Clearly you do not understand how a regional economy works within its district.

And ever since you've been dancing around,
can't decide either way, can't answer a friggin question.

Why do you even come to post here if you don't want to really discuss anything?