What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?

[P F Tinmore]

And now........Tinmore will get back to the thread's topic by telling us what "From the River to the Sea" means to him.

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

 

[rylah]

And now........Tinmore will get back to the thread's topic by telling us what "From the River to the Sea" means to him.

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Another meaningless slogan from the Caliphate Inc.
All You know is to say You lack rights while celebrating public executions of gays in the streets,
and demanding a Jew free Palestine as a national goal.

 

[Slyhunter]

There may have been people living in disputed territory prior to 67 but they weren't ruled by a country so they don't count.

 

[Sixties Fan]

There may have been people living in disputed territory prior to 67 but they weren't ruled by a country so they don't count.

Jordan ruled the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem after they invaded and conquered those areas until 1967.
They were not allowed to annex all of those areas.

But Yes, there was a country ruling over all of those Arab people living in those areas.

 

[USAF 2023]

And now........Tinmore will get back to the thread's topic by telling us what "From the River to the Sea" means to him.

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Another meaningless slogan from the Caliphate Inc.
All You know is to say You lack rights while celebrating public executions of gays in the streets,
and demanding a Jew free Palestine as a national goal.

That expression does not support a “ Two State Solution “ It considers all of the land to be “ Palestine “ which is why the “ two state Solution “ will never happen .
The fact that he doesn’t condemn the Palestinians position that their “ state” be Israeli free says it all.

 

[Slyhunter]

There may have been people living in disputed territory prior to 67 but they weren't ruled by a country so they don't count.

Jordan ruled the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem after they invaded and conquered those areas until 1967.
They were not allowed to annex all of those areas.

But Yes, there was a country ruling over all of those Arab people living in those areas.

Jordan gave up their rights to the land.

 

[Sixties Fan]

There may have been people living in disputed territory prior to 67 but they weren't ruled by a country so they don't count.

Jordan ruled the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem after they invaded and conquered those areas until 1967.
They were not allowed to annex all of those areas.

But Yes, there was a country ruling over all of those Arab people living in those areas.

Jordan gave up their rights to the land.

That was not the point of your previous post.

 

[Slyhunter]

There may have been people living in disputed territory prior to 67 but they weren't ruled by a country so they don't count.

Jordan ruled the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem after they invaded and conquered those areas until 1967.
They were not allowed to annex all of those areas.

But Yes, there was a country ruling over all of those Arab people living in those areas.

Jordan gave up their rights to the land.

That was not the point of your previous post.

ie the land was unowned available to be owned by Israel at their convenience.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Murdering Jews is not an inalienable right, even though you support the notion.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Dogmaphobe, P F Tinmore, et al,

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Murdering Jews is not an inalienable right, even though you support the notion.

(COMMENT)

Two Points:

◈ The Arab Palestinians "HAVE" all the inalienable rights as a people.

✦Exactly what is the inalienable rights are you missing?
✦ Who has them?​

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

◈ Positive Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Positive Rights, THEN Israel is obligated to perfom some action.
◈ Negative Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Negative Rights, THEN Israel is obligation to refrain from an action.​

Which is it. Remember, inalienable rights are not a prelude to political suicide. Isreal is not obliged to take or permit a actionby the Arab Palestinians that will result in the death of the Jewish National Home (now or in the future). ALL nations (that survive) that the action that is is their own best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Dogmaphobe, P F Tinmore, et al,

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Murdering Jews is not an inalienable right, even though you support the notion.

(COMMENT)

Two Points:

◈ The Arab Palestinians "HAVE" all the inalienable rights as a people.

✦Exactly what is the inalienable rights are you missing?
✦ Who has them?

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

◈ Positive Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Positive Rights, THEN Israel is obligated to perfom some action.
◈ Negative Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Negative Rights, THEN Israel is obligation to refrain from an action.​

Which is it. Remember, inalienable rights are not a prelude to political suicide. Isreal is not obliged to take or permit a actionby the Arab Palestinians that will result in the death of the Jewish National Home (now or in the future). ALL nations (that survive) that the action that is is their own best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

Palestine is the poster child of external interference.

 

[Linkiloo]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ Dogmaphobe, P F Tinmore, et al,

When the Palestinians have all of their inalienable rights as a people.

Murdering Jews is not an inalienable right, even though you support the notion.

(COMMENT)

Two Points:

◈ The Arab Palestinians "HAVE" all the inalienable rights as a people.

✦Exactly what is the inalienable rights are you missing?
✦ Who has them?

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;
(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;​

◈ Positive Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Positive Rights, THEN Israel is obligated to perfom some action.
◈ Negative Rights: IF the Arab Palestinians have these as Negative Rights, THEN Israel is obligation to refrain from an action.​

Which is it. Remember, inalienable rights are not a prelude to political suicide. Isreal is not obliged to take or permit a actionby the Arab Palestinians that will result in the death of the Jewish National Home (now or in the future). ALL nations (that survive) that the action that is is their own best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

Palestine is the poster child of external interference.

Another slogan.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your comment suggests that the territory you call "Palestine" epitomizes the result of the realities of the world. That would be wrong.

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

Palestine is the poster child of external interference.

(COMMENT)

At the same time that the Allied Powers were dealing with Palestine, they were also was a launched military expedition, into the Russian Civil War in 1918. The Arab Palestinians were not this unique on the matter of military intervention in that time period. In the first quarter of the 20th Century, even before the Treaty of Lausanne, the use of military power was the standard answer to some serious questions.:

✪ 1906 to 1909: US administration of Cuba,
✪ 1909 and 1912 to 1933 US occupation of Nicaragua:
✪ 1914 to 1917: The Pancho Villa Expedition,
✪ 1915 to 1934: US occupation of Haiti
✪ 1916 to 1924: US occupation of the Dominican Republic​

In more contemporary times, President Eisenhower (1958), sent troops into Lebanon. And then we roll into South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia period. And all that was just what America was involved in.

The International Military Intervention (IMI) data set (the practice it is so common that the subject has its own international database) indicated that → "in all, 1114 cases meeting these criteria are cataloged for the years 1946 to 2005."

The point being, your thesis on the idea of "external interference" being some sort of cornerstone in freedoms is terrible screw-up when placed against the reality of worldly politics. The "Arab Palestinians" are not unique, and your NOT (in any way) an example of international law being stepped upon. It has happened a thousand time since the UN Charter was adopted.

Most Respectfully,
R