Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

Arab Pal'istanians have some odd notions of child rearing. The esteemed "ambassador" Ahmed has some clever notions of how to put the ummah's kids to best use.




Palestinian Ambassador to Iraq Ahmad ‘Aql: We Will Resist Deal of Century until Last Drop of Palestinian Child’s Blood




He added that a Palestinian child takes a kitchen knife, kills three armed Israeli soldiers, steals their car, and continues to kill and wound other soldiers somewhere else. He said: "A people who has such children will never be defeated". He said that the Palestinians will resist the Deal of the Century and the American and Zionist enemy until the last drop of a Palestinian child's blood.


Lovely.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

Now you are taking the "ridiculousness" to new heights. This is a question in which the first-order rule of interpretation tells appliers how an interpreted treaty provision shall be understood.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

(COMMENT)

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

OR​

​

You can use the → On The Interpretation of Treaties • Law and Philosophy Library • Volume 83 [ISBN 978-1-4020-6362-6 (e-book)]

Rule #1§4 For the purpose of this rule, parties means any and all states for which the treaty is in force at
the time of interpretation.​

OR​

Generally Held: → Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 455

party (to a treaty) In terms of art. 2(1)(g) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 23 May 1969 ( 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ), a party is ‘a State which has consented to be bound by
the treaty and for which the treaty is in force’. Cf . contracting State ; signatory State .

A party to a contract is one who holds the obligations and receives the benefits of a legally binding agreement. When two parties enter into an agreement, there are two distinct roles each play: the promisor and the promisee. The promisor is the party that makes the promise, while the promisee is on the receiving end of the promise.​

Don't for a moment think that Section II (Nationality) • Article 30 has anything to do with who is a party to the Treaty or on the decisions as to transfer of territory. While it is TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the Government of Palestine (a legal entity), it is NOT TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became nationals of the Government of Palestine. States within the territory west of the Jordan River had been undecided. And the territory east of the Jordan River was only granted its sovereignty by the treaty with the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) in 1946. (See Treaty Series page 145)

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

(COMMENT)

The territory was NOT transferred anywhere. And Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. It cannot be made any clearer. There was no country created in the territory west of the Jordan River until 15 May 1948 by the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government; that being the Jewish State of Israel. At that time, the people of all persuasions, inside the limits of the sovereign territory over which the Jewish.

Just as a matter of clarity, the Arab Palestinian people did not declare independence. It was the Palestine Liberation Organization that declared independence.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

Nice obfuscation, though.

Refute the issues in my post with links.

 

[froggy]

How does anyone or any nation even begin to negotiate peace with a people who prefer death over life?

Well, it seems that Zionists threaten with the death of our entire planet, if their regime is in danger:

Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch(2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan:

'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.'

I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third.

We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.[30]


Samson Option - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

How can you negotiate with people who have chosen to behave like "mad dogs"?
How can you negotiate with people who threaten to destroy the entire planet?

They were ruled over by Herod the Great isn't that enough reason to fight to the end

 

[Hollie]

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

Now you are taking the "ridiculousness" to new heights. This is a question in which the first-order rule of interpretation tells appliers how an interpreted treaty provision shall be understood.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

(COMMENT)

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

OR​

​

You can use the → On The Interpretation of Treaties • Law and Philosophy Library • Volume 83 [ISBN 978-1-4020-6362-6 (e-book)]

Rule #1§4 For the purpose of this rule, parties means any and all states for which the treaty is in force at
the time of interpretation.​

OR​

Generally Held: → Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 455

party (to a treaty) In terms of art. 2(1)(g) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 23 May 1969 ( 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ), a party is ‘a State which has consented to be bound by
the treaty and for which the treaty is in force’. Cf . contracting State ; signatory State .

A party to a contract is one who holds the obligations and receives the benefits of a legally binding agreement. When two parties enter into an agreement, there are two distinct roles each play: the promisor and the promisee. The promisor is the party that makes the promise, while the promisee is on the receiving end of the promise.​

Don't for a moment think that Section II (Nationality) • Article 30 has anything to do with who is a party to the Treaty or on the decisions as to transfer of territory. While it is TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the Government of Palestine (a legal entity), it is NOT TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became nationals of the Government of Palestine. States within the territory west of the Jordan River had been undecided. And the territory east of the Jordan River was only granted its sovereignty by the treaty with the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) in 1946. (See Treaty Series page 145)

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

(COMMENT)

The territory was NOT transferred anywhere. And Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. It cannot be made any clearer. There was no country created in the territory west of the Jordan River until 15 May 1948 by the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government; that being the Jewish State of Israel. At that time, the people of all persuasions, inside the limits of the sovereign territory over which the Jewish.

Just as a matter of clarity, the Arab Palestinian people did not declare independence. It was the Palestine Liberation Organization that declared independence.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

Nice obfuscation, though.

Refute the issues in my post with links.

You’re not the least bit embarrassed about that?

 

[RoccoR]

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

There is a concept imperative to the argument that the Israelis took some measure of sovereignty away from the Arab Palestinians. With a belief in this Idea that the Palestinians had a country, it unravels.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;

You are grasping at straws.

Nice obfuscation, though.

Refute the issues in my post with links.

You’re not the least bit embarrassed about that?

(COMMENT)

Blind is more likely.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Today is the first day of the Islamic month of Rajab.

Like in many places worldwide, Palestinian schools have various announcements meant to be broadcast over school public address systems for various occasions. Sometimes these broadcasts include current events, prayers and the like.

Watania, a Gaza-based news organization, published a script yesterday of what was to be broadcast this morning in Palestinian schools on the occasion of the new lunar month. I don't think this is an official mandate, rather a suggestion of how to make Rajab relevant to students. No doubt some schools do broadcast what is suggested.

The suggested broadcast for today is antisemitic.

It includes this fervent prayer: "Oh Allah we ask that this year be a year of good and peace and that you cleanse the Holy Land from the spiteful Jews, for they are no match for You. Oh Jews, we have a great Lord; take revenge on them, oh Vanquisher/Subduer, oh Allah, oh Allah, oh Allah."

I found some other transcripts of Palestinian school radio broadcasts sprinkled throughout the Internet and antisemitism is not unusual. For example, this one says Jews could only hold onto Israel because of Muslim negligence:

(full article online)

Palestinian school prayers today: "Oh Allah, cleanse the Holy Land of Jews" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Today is the first day of the Islamic month of Rajab.

Like in many places worldwide, Palestinian schools have various announcements meant to be broadcast over school public address systems for various occasions. Sometimes these broadcasts include current events, prayers and the like.

Watania, a Gaza-based news organization, published a script yesterday of what was to be broadcast this morning in Palestinian schools on the occasion of the new lunar month. I don't think this is an official mandate, rather a suggestion of how to make Rajab relevant to students. No doubt some schools do broadcast what is suggested.

The suggested broadcast for today is antisemitic.

It includes this fervent prayer: "Oh Allah we ask that this year be a year of good and peace and that you cleanse the Holy Land from the spiteful Jews, for they are no match for You. Oh Jews, we have a great Lord; take revenge on them, oh Vanquisher/Subduer, oh Allah, oh Allah, oh Allah."

I found some other transcripts of Palestinian school radio broadcasts sprinkled throughout the Internet and antisemitism is not unusual. For example, this one says Jews could only hold onto Israel because of Muslim negligence:

(full article online)

Palestinian school prayers today: "Oh Allah, cleanse the Holy Land of Jews" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

The Jews kicked Palestinian ass because Allah willed it.

 

[Hollie]

I expect to see a news conference where Hamas parades 10 year old girls in front of a camera waving knives and screeching about gee-had.



Israel seizes $4 million in Iranian terror money sent to Hamas - Defense/Security

Defense Minister Naftali Bennett on Thursday signed an order to seize $4 million transferred from Iran to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The money is intended to develop Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, including the production of weapons and payment to the organization's terrorists, and originates from the Iranian government working against the State of Israel.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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

Now you are taking the "ridiculousness" to new heights. This is a question in which the first-order rule of interpretation tells appliers how an interpreted treaty provision shall be understood.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

(COMMENT)

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

OR​

​

You can use the → On The Interpretation of Treaties • Law and Philosophy Library • Volume 83 [ISBN 978-1-4020-6362-6 (e-book)]

Rule #1§4 For the purpose of this rule, parties means any and all states for which the treaty is in force at
the time of interpretation.​

OR​

Generally Held: → Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 455

party (to a treaty) In terms of art. 2(1)(g) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 23 May 1969 ( 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ), a party is ‘a State which has consented to be bound by
the treaty and for which the treaty is in force’. Cf . contracting State ; signatory State .

A party to a contract is one who holds the obligations and receives the benefits of a legally binding agreement. When two parties enter into an agreement, there are two distinct roles each play: the promisor and the promisee. The promisor is the party that makes the promise, while the promisee is on the receiving end of the promise.​

Don't for a moment think that Section II (Nationality) • Article 30 has anything to do with who is a party to the Treaty or on the decisions as to transfer of territory. While it is TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the Government of Palestine (a legal entity), it is NOT TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became nationals of the Government of Palestine. States within the territory west of the Jordan River had been undecided. And the territory east of the Jordan River was only granted its sovereignty by the treaty with the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) in 1946. (See Treaty Series page 145)

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

(COMMENT)

The territory was NOT transferred anywhere. And Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. It cannot be made any clearer. There was no country created in the territory west of the Jordan River until 15 May 1948 by the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government; that being the Jewish State of Israel. At that time, the people of all persuasions, inside the limits of the sovereign territory over which the Jewish.

Just as a matter of clarity, the Arab Palestinian people did not declare independence. It was the Palestine Liberation Organization that declared independence.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

Nice obfuscation, though.

Refute the issues in my post with links.

You’re not the least bit embarrassed about that?

Remember - human beings are the only species that blushes.

 

[toastman]

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

Now you are taking the "ridiculousness" to new heights. This is a question in which the first-order rule of interpretation tells appliers how an interpreted treaty provision shall be understood.

Here again, you are basing your conclusions on false premise.

Reading through the Treaty of Lausanne, the parties concerned are the states.

(COMMENT)

Now you can use the → Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969):

Article 2(g) “party” means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force;​

OR​

​

You can use the → On The Interpretation of Treaties • Law and Philosophy Library • Volume 83 [ISBN 978-1-4020-6362-6 (e-book)]

Rule #1§4 For the purpose of this rule, parties means any and all states for which the treaty is in force at
the time of interpretation.​

OR​

Generally Held: → Parry & Grant Encyclopaedic Dictionary of International Law, page 455

party (to a treaty) In terms of art. 2(1)(g) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
of 23 May 1969 ( 1155 U.N.T.S. 331 ), a party is ‘a State which has consented to be bound by
the treaty and for which the treaty is in force’. Cf . contracting State ; signatory State .

A party to a contract is one who holds the obligations and receives the benefits of a legally binding agreement. When two parties enter into an agreement, there are two distinct roles each play: the promisor and the promisee. The promisor is the party that makes the promise, while the promisee is on the receiving end of the promise.​

Don't for a moment think that Section II (Nationality) • Article 30 has anything to do with who is a party to the Treaty or on the decisions as to transfer of territory. While it is TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became citizens of the Government of Palestine (a legal entity), it is NOT TRUE that the Arab Palestinians became nationals of the Government of Palestine. States within the territory west of the Jordan River had been undecided. And the territory east of the Jordan River was only granted its sovereignty by the treaty with the Mandatory Power (Great Britain) in 1946. (See Treaty Series page 145)

The territory, however, was transferred to Palestine. The Palestinians (the people who lived there) became citizens of Palestine. They are the people who have the right to self-determination and sovereignty as subsequent UN resolutions have affirmed.

(COMMENT)

The territory was NOT transferred anywhere. And Again, you are mixing apples and oranges. It cannot be made any clearer. There was no country created in the territory west of the Jordan River until 15 May 1948 by the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government; that being the Jewish State of Israel. At that time, the people of all persuasions, inside the limits of the sovereign territory over which the Jewish.

Just as a matter of clarity, the Arab Palestinian people did not declare independence. It was the Palestine Liberation Organization that declared independence.


Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

Nice obfuscation, though.

Refute the issues in my post with links.

All Rocco does is refute your lies with links. You simply cannot handle the truth , as usual

 

[Hollie]

Hamas is in quite a predicament. With Haniyeh being banned from Gaza and Yahya Sinwar in hiding for fear of IsraelI retaliatory responses, the more excitable of the Iranian occupation forces (PIJ), has a greater role in the gee-had.

It’s difficult to determine if Cairo has anywhere near the leverage with PIJ that they had with Hamas. If Iran orders PIJ to launch attacks aimed Israel, there may be limited options for the Israelis to defend themselves short of a sweeping campaign to root out the threat.


Hamas Fails to Curb Palestinian Islamic Jihad

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Following recent rocket fire, Israel cannot tolerate “the rules of the game” that Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) is trying to impose on it, and the objective of reaching a long-term “understanding” with the main terrorist group, Hamas, is looking increasingly distant.

 

[Hollie]

Islamic totalitarianism has real consequences.



PA: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to Jews | PMW Analysis

PA: You're a "traitor" if you sell land to Jews
Nan Jacques Zilberdik | Feb 28, 2020

Any Palestinian who sells land to Jews is “a traitor,” according to the Palestinian Authority. This was recently reiterated by a PA governor who instructed the PA police to “take the firmest steps” against anyone who has sold or transferred land to Jews. He emphasized that anyone doing so is “a traitor”:

 

[Sixties Fan]

Qattati says that this made a huge impression on him, and gave him a reason for hating Israel for making him a refugee. But why, if he lived in El Arish, wasn't he an Egyptian citizen? Why is his teacher treating him differently than other students?

Why is there no anger towards the Arab world for "othering" Palestinians?

Yet there isn't. Instead, there is antisemitism.

The bulk of the article is a plea for Palestinians to return to revolution, and a culture of revolution in its media, with songs glorifying martyrdom and violence. Qattati is upset that many Palestinians seem to have abandoned that revolutionary spirit.

However, he concludes, there is something that all Palestinians have in common: "At least we - the Palestinians - can agree on one goal: to make the Jewish settlers unable to live among us, and not be able to remain in Palestine."

He can say, without fear of contradiction, that all Palestinians want to get rid of all the Jews in "Palestine."

(full article online)

"Palestinians can agree on one goal: Eliminate Jews from Palestine" ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Hollie]

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.



Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely responding.-

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely responding.-

Is bombing a pizza restaurant a response that is okay in your opinion?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely responding.-

Is bombing a pizza restaurant a response that is okay in your opinion?

Israel can stop its war any time it wants.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely responding.-

Is bombing a pizza restaurant a response that is okay in your opinion?

Israel can stop its war any time it wants.

Is bombing a pizza restaurant a response that is okay in your opinion?

 

[Hollie]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

Now this is a very vivid case of selective application of International Law.

“Conquer the world”.

Brought to you by the Cult that can’t pay their electric bill.

Of course, though, not everyone is quite so sanguine about the prospects of a revival of the wholesome medieval Islamic values of sharia, gee-had, and... holy mass murder for Allah.
Al-Aqsa Mosque Address by Sheikh Muhammad Ayed: It Is Time to Announce Caliphate, Liberate Jerusalem, Set out for Rome and the White House, Conquer the World

(COMMENT)

I think I have heard every pro-Arab Palestinian complain about the double stand and raise the issue as to why the restrictions on Arab Palestinian travel across into Israel are still in force and may even get more restrictive.

The Arab Palestinians know damn well that the incitement of Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is a direct violation of International Law.

◈ Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
◈ Article 4(a) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”),
◈ Article 1a S/RES/1624 (2005) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts.
◈ Article 2 UN Charter on Threats to Use Force - Condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage and threats to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression; (Amplified by A/RES/2/110)​

These include respect for the rights of others, public order, prohibition of abuse of rights, or national security.


Most Respectfully,
R

Israel is the aggressor. The Palestinians are merely responding.-

That’s another of your cut and paste slogans. The Hamas Charter is a restatement of Islamic offensive gee-had. It is not a response to Israeli aggression but an affirmation of Islamist ideology.