The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

[P F Tinmore]

The Government of Palestine was an organ of the Mandatory.

Government of what?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This would be wrong as well.

Yes, the Order in Council for Palestine (1922)

Palestine was occupied Turkish territory then.

(COMMENT)

For all intent and purposes, the British Civil Administration assumed control on 1 July 1920, from the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

The Council of the League of Nations on July 24th, 1922, formalized the British Mandate for the administration of the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah right, self-government under military occupation and martial law imposed by foreigners. That makes sense. What a clown you are.

The US "supports" democracy so long as the party they support wins.

When Hamas won the election the US and its proxy agent, Israel did everything possible to murder the duly elected officials.

But Obama complains about Russia interfering in our elections. The stupid hypocritical sons of bitches.


.


.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to justify your belief that the Palestinians have no rights?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I just don't know how many different ways I have to say it.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to justify your belief that the Palestinians have no rights?

(COMMENT)

Same as above:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

Both Labor and Likud governments have funded settlers, many religious extremists, and gifted them the best land.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are denied building approval for homes, even a chicken coop. If in Area C they throw up a granny flat it's promptly demolished by army bulldozers.


The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

Just as in the US when you try and build without the correct permits, your building gets demolished and you get the bill.

Do I need a permit from Canada to build in Ohio?

Not unless Canada controls Ohio, which, in this metaphorical case, it does.

C'mon, Tinny, gotta conjure-up sumfin' a little more difficult than that...

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

The Rights of the Arab Palestinians are a different issues all together.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to justify your belief that the Palestinians have no rights?

They can have all the rights they want - on the east side of the Jordan... no future for them, on the west side.

 

[Kondor3]

Both Labor and Likud governments have funded settlers, many religious extremists, and gifted them the best land.

Meanwhile, Palestinians are denied building approval for homes, even a chicken coop. If in Area C they throw up a granny flat it's promptly demolished by army bulldozers.


The genius of the UN's resolution on Israeli settlements

Just as in the US when you try and build without the correct permits, your building gets demolished and you get the bill.

Do I need a permit from Canada to build in Ohio?

No one is listening to you, because you don't even recognize Israel proper in its 1967 lines.

The 1967 lines are not political or territorial borders as per the UN.

They are per the Israel Defense Force.

And, in the end, that's all that counts.

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, P F Tinmore, FOREVERYOUNG436, et al

Kondor and Foreveryound have it right.

No one is listening to you, because you don't even recognize Israel proper in its 1967 lines.

The 1967 lines are not political or territorial borders as per the UN.

They are per the Israel Defense Force. And, in the end, that's all that counts.

(COMMENT)

Whatever else the international Community may think, they understand the mechanics of extending sovereignty. Israel has boundaries out to the end of their sovereignty.

Don't worry about the borders. Look at the extent of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Kondor3, P F Tinmore, FOREVERYOUNG436, et al

Kondor and Foreveryound have it right.

No one is listening to you, because you don't even recognize Israel proper in its 1967 lines.

The 1967 lines are not political or territorial borders as per the UN.

They are per the Israel Defense Force. And, in the end, that's all that counts.

(COMMENT)

Whatever else the international Community may think, they understand the mechanics of extending sovereignty. Israel has boundaries out to the end of their sovereignty.

Don't worry about the borders. Look at the extent of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

A line of goons with guns do not acquire sovereignty. They only have control, i.e. occupation.

 

[Kondor3]

Kondor3, P F Tinmore, FOREVERYOUNG436, et al

Kondor and Foreveryound have it right.

No one is listening to you, because you don't even recognize Israel proper in its 1967 lines.

The 1967 lines are not political or territorial borders as per the UN.

They are per the Israel Defense Force. And, in the end, that's all that counts.

(COMMENT)

Whatever else the international Community may think, they understand the mechanics of extending sovereignty. Israel has boundaries out to the end of their sovereignty.

Don't worry about the borders. Look at the extent of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

A line of goons with guns do not acquire sovereignty. They only have control, i.e. occupation.

Keep dreaming, Tinny... keep fueling the fire with false hope for the so-called Palestinians.. they're dumb enough to believe you.

The truth of the matter is, that Israel exists, it has borders that it established and fought-for and which it now sustains, and which represent a fait accompli.

There is no going back.

Just as there is no going back within the United States...

Otherwise, you would be giving your residential property over to the Native Americans and returning to your own ancestral homeland...

Line of goons?

Hardly.

A nation comprised largely of the sons and grandsons (and daughters and granddaughters) of the survivors of the Nazi Holocaust, and other returning Jews...

Representing a resurrected People who were persecuted for thousands of years, until near-extinction within living memory, who rediscovered their courage and fighting skill...

A People who kicked Muslim-Arab ass, repeatedly, in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and who won (and kept and expanded) a home for themselves to hold against all comers...

The world despises whiny little bitches, like your so-called Palestinian buddies..

The world admires courage and fighting skill, like that demonstrated by the People of Israel...

That's why - in the final analysis - nobody gives enough of a shit about your Palestinians, enough to go to war over them any longer, or to intervene, effectively...

Your beloved Palestinians have been sitting in refugee towns and refugee camps for 68 years now... not exactly the mark of all-round high intelligence or martial ability...

Your Arab buddies are scared shit-less of the Israelis, having had their asses kicked in 1948, 1967 and 1973, and now that Israel is a regional nuclear military power...

You can wipe your ass with UN Resolution 2234... because the Israelis certainly will.... and, after January 20, 2017, so will the United States...

And, frankly, outside the domains of Islam and within the larger domains of Christendom, most Christians would rather side with Jews than with Muslims...

Especially when it comes to giving a homeland to the descendants of those poor bastards who were slaughtered in their millions in Europe...

Most Westerners - either openly or secretly - want to see the Jews with a homeland of their own, in their spiritual homeland - prior occupants of the land notwithstanding...

Those Muslim-Arab so-called 'Palestinians' who have a long genetic history in that land are mostly the descendants of Muslim warriors who stole the land themselves, long ago...

Besides... it's common knowledge, that the disparate and diverse, rag-tag collection of tribal inhabitants and the large 20th Century influx of Arab migrants, are not a "people"...

Yassir Arafat and his thugs - in devising the so-called Palestinian people and state - were creating a fiction, designed to focus political power until they could overpower the Jews...

And, in light of the vast array of International Terrorism incidents spawned by so-called Palestinians and those sympathetic towards them...

Just when do you expect your whiny, pissant pseudo-legal arguments to take-hold, and become operative?

Perhaps in some Alternative Universe?

Certainly not in this Universe...

Guaranteed.

 

[Contumacious]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

For you they do not exist.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to justify your belief that the Palestinians have no rights?

They can have all the rights they want - on the east side of the Jordan... no future for them, on the west side.

It is bullshit talk like that which will ensure a permanent state of war.

You assume that nations will roll over and play dead.

Kim Jong Un says North Korea close to testing ICBM

They will obtain R-E-S-P-E-C-T by arming themselves and making the world unsafe. You stupid son of a bitch.


Soon Kim Jong Un will be able to deliver a nuclear device to your neck of the woods.


.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a difference question. This is not a question of the "right to exist." This is a question of much bigger than "rights." In 1948, the Allied Powers presented the Jewish Agency an opportunity to establish a sovereign territory.

Kondor3, P F Tinmore, FOREVERYOUNG436, et al

Kondor and Foreveryound have it right.

No one is listening to you, because you don't even recognize Israel proper in its 1967 lines.

The 1967 lines are not political or territorial borders as per the UN.

They are per the Israel Defense Force. And, in the end, that's all that counts.

(COMMENT)

Whatever else the international Community may think, they understand the mechanics of extending sovereignty. Israel has boundaries out to the end of their sovereignty.

Don't worry about the borders. Look at the extent of sovereignty.

Most Respectfully,
R

A line of goons with guns do not acquire sovereignty. They only have control, i.e. occupation.

(COMMENT)

Actually, Israel really does not want to albatross of sovereign control for either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has to be careful that, no matter how dysfunctional the governmental leadership is, neither the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must not totally collapse into chaos; leaving Israel holding the bag. It is an economic black hole.

The status quo is probably an outcome furthering Israel interests.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not at all sure that you understand what a "right" is. In the atmosphere of contemporary foreign politics, a "right" (to this or that) is not always compatible with reality (reality always wins). While it is often framed as a formal promise, guarantee or assurance (typically in writing) that certain conditions will be fulfilled. Well that is sometimes true and sometimes not.

You will take note that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (what Human Rights activist like to call the "first of these projected instruments") never actually became law. However, its sister elements [(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights)(CCPR) and the (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)(CESCR)] did ascend into treaties; enforceable in 1976. And then there is this thing called the International Bill of Human Rights (IBR) which is what you get when you assemble all three (UDHR -- CCPR -- CESCR) together into one document. But let me assure you that if any of these "project instruments" ever comes in conflict with the best interest of a signatory, they can withdraw under Article 41(2) of the CCPR and Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not believe I have ever said that.

(COMMENT)

I state my objections as they arrive in discussions.

Most Respectfully,
R

You blow off any mention of Palestinian rights as irrelevant.

(COMMENT)

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP --- A/RES/61/295 of 13 SEP 07). It has not ascended into a Treatise and is, unenforceable, on a stand alone basis. It is a 21st Product. It has some strange, and maybe ambiguous passages in it. One of my most favorite of these is:

"Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such,"
​

Now we generally accept that Human Rights doctrines, policies and practices show not advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. The application and interpretation of law pursuant to internationally recognized human rights age, race, color, gender, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.

But, as articulated in Article 1, DRIP: Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the UDHR and international human rights law. This is a prefect example of a "right" that has unattainable expectations. (I am willing to say that there are very few nations that have "full employment.") So the Arab Palestinian should understand that, "rights" are not a goal that is always in the category of achievable. Certainly not the Article 1 "Right to Full Employment;" and not the "Right of Return."

I have often had people raise the issues of Article 13(2) DRIP (as is Article 26) and the meaning of "take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected" --- and --- "or by other appropriate means." I don't know how much you can read into a phrase like that. But I'm sure it is not advocating for armed struggle and violence. But since the Resolution is unenforceable, I pay little attention to it. I don't know if it will ever be refined.

Most Respectfully,
R

Are you trying to justify your belief that the Palestinians have no rights?

They can have all the rights they want - on the east side of the Jordan... no future for them, on the west side.

It is bullshit talk like that which will ensure a permanent state of war.

You assume that nations will roll over and play dead.

Kim Jong Un says North Korea close to testing ICBM

They will obtain R-E-S-P-E-C-T by arming themselves and making the world unsafe. You stupid son of a bitch.


Soon Kim Jong Un will be able to deliver a nuclear device to your neck of the woods.


.

Blah, blah, blah, endless phukking blah...

Thank you for expressing your personal opinion in the matter...

Facts on the ground, in Great Israel, however, indicate a different state of affairs and future...

Nations have ALREADY rolled over and played dead, fool tool...

And they aren't going to do jack-shit about Israel...

Especially when the United States has Israel's back, as it will again, full-force, after January 20, 2017...

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can think of sovereignty in its simplest form as the perimeter of a self-governing state; or as Article 1 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States say: "b ) a defined territory." Now there is a hidden assumption here in that the perimeter in question is such that it forms an closed figure that incapsulates a formal authority that is not govern by an external power.

A line of goons with guns do not acquire sovereignty. They only have control, i.e. occupation.

(COMMENT)

Your very crude analogy of the "a line of goons with guns" (LoGWGs) is ass backwards. The LoGWGs are a controlled asset of the self-governing power. As the LoGWGs extends itself outward, lengthening the perimeter and expanding the territory within the closed geography, the self-governing power has expanded its authority. It is now a matter of degree the authority is imposed as to whether the expanded territory is sovereign or just generally maintaining the effective control.

But your understanding of what can be accomplished with the LoGWGs is not very imaginative. Just recently (2014) the Russian Federation annexation the Crimea. This annexation was preceded by a LoGWGs (para-military/military intervention) expanding the perimeter of the Russian Federation. And it was then that the Russian Federation (acting with the Berkut, and backed by the Black Sea Fleet) made a decision to incorporate the Crimea into the Federation; not just merely occupy it.

Now, just like the Arab League and the various other countries "SAY" they do not "recognize" the annexation of East Jerusalem, or a portion of the Golan Heights, they actually really do recognize it. All the countries that enter those areas know that they have changed jurisdictions, need to ask a different government for visa informations and stamps. Even Syria understands the the Air Defense Zone has changed; especially after the Syrian Air Force lost one of its fighters when they attempted to test Israeli resolve.

You can say this or that, but political babel and brinksmanship is a poor substitute for reality and actual ground truth.

The pro-Arab Palestinians always suggest that they don't recognize this or that. But when it comes right down to it, the Arab Palestinian knows that in the real world, they must actually recognize Israeli Border Checkpoint Rules and the warning and danger on the close approach to the international boundary.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

As the LoGWGs extends itself outward, lengthening the perimeter and expanding the territory within the closed geography,

OK, but it is illegal to annex occupied territory.

And it is illegal to acquire territory by force.