Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[P F Tinmore]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

 

[rylah]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

 

[rylah]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

 

[RoccoR]

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


BLUF: There is absolutely NO Internation Law that denies Israel the same rights as the Palestinian.

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.
I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

(COMMENT)

Everyone, in international law, is equal under the law; it is a Rule of Law.

What is the Rule of Law
For the United Nations (UN) system, the rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.
SOURCE: Rule of Law Unit, Executive Office of the Secretary-General

And another thing. The establishment of governance over the West Bank is in question. In August 1988, the established sovereign authority abandoned the territory and by default, Israel became the de facto governing authority over the entirety of the West Bank. There was no other government making claim to the territory at that time. Even the UN Trusteeship System was silent. And the was NO fully formed (or even partially formed) Palestinian government in existence. The West Bank became a protectorate of Israel as the only remaining governing footprint in control.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

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

As a layman..

BLUF: In my opinion, both the International Community and the International Justice System abandon Israel on the day Israel was founded.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

(COMMENT)

The trust, confidence in their competence, and respect for the opinions of the International Courts dealing on behalf of a designated terrorist organization are slowly slipping away.

In the matter of Integrity, independence, and impartiality in regards to Israel v Palestine is an example of the ineffective and non-functional judiciary that is incapable of peaceful resolution of legal disputes in the Middle East.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

 

[rylah]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

All I see are contradictions upon contradictions,
and your inability to defend anything because of this inconsistency in your argument.

Wanna try another example?
Let's see, according to YOUR definition:

Sovereignty can only be applied by the sovereign nationals.

What is legitimate about Yasser Arafat's claim to sovereignty?

 

[Sixties Fan]

Although this was reported on Thursday, there has been no condemnation of the Palestinian Authority for not accepting free vaccines for thousands of its people.

Which is exactly what critics of Israel have been insisting that Israel do for two months!

This shows yet again that there are very few people who are truly pro-Palestinian. The only, and I mean only, reason not to accept this offer is because it makes Israel look humane, and avoiding that is worth a few Palestinian lives.

But what about the other side of the story. Was this a cynical way for Israel to use the vaccines to make a propaganda victory - to show photos of virtuous Jews vaccinating poor Palestinians and making Israel look good?

Well, no:

After Israel’s initial proposal was refused, a second was reportedly made: that the vaccines be administered by Arab Israeli paramedics and not by Jewish ones, and that they be dressed in clothes that bear no markings of Israeli medical establishments.

That offer was also turned down, the report said.

It is now a mantra. Palestinian lives don't matter unless Jews can be blamed. The Palestinian Authority would prefer its own people die than be indebted to Jews for saving their lives.

(full article online)

Abbas reportedly refused to let Israel vaccinate thousands of Palestinians. Media silent.

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[P F Tinmore]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

All I see are contradictions upon contradictions,
and your inability to defend anything because of this inconsistency in your argument.

Wanna try another example?
Let's see, according to YOUR definition:

Sovereignty can only be applied by the sovereign nationals.

What is legitimate about Yasser Arafat's claim to sovereignty?

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

All I see are contradictions upon contradictions,
and your inability to defend anything because of this inconsistency in your argument.

Wanna try another example?
Let's see, according to YOUR definition:

Sovereignty can only be applied by the sovereign nationals.

What is legitimate about Yasser Arafat's claim to sovereignty?

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

Hilarious.

 

[Hollie]

“National peoples”.



Top PA official Rajoub praises terrorist murderers as “national leaders,” “my brothers and colleagues in prison”

Nan Jacques Zilberdik | Feb 25, 2021

We will "lead according to heritage" from arch-terrorists
and “heroic prisoners” - “the fuel of this system”

Fatah Central Committee Secretary Jibril Rajoub is one of the people regularly mentioned as possible successor to 85-year-old PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas sometime in the not-too-distant future. On a regular basis Rajoub praises terrorist murderers as heroes, and recently praised specific arch-terrorists and murderers - responsible for dozens of killings – stating that the currently imprisoned terrorists are “heroic” and “the fuel of this system”:

 

[Hollie]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

All I see are contradictions upon contradictions,
and your inability to defend anything because of this inconsistency in your argument.

Wanna try another example?
Let's see, according to YOUR definition:

Sovereignty can only be applied by the sovereign nationals.

What is legitimate about Yasser Arafat's claim to sovereignty?

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

So then. The peoples™ living in the defined territory of the Bible Belt are nationals of that territory?

 

[Hollie]

The entitled Arabs-Moslems are in a snit.

Palestinians condemn Israel’s move to send vaccines overseas

Palestinian Authority foreign minister denounces Israel sending vaccines to foreign allies as ‘political blackmail’.

www.aljazeera.com

Palestinian Authority foreign minister denounces Israel sending vaccines to foreign allies as ‘political blackmail’.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: I think even I can understand what you are saying. But as a sidebar issue: I'm wondering, where you derived your definition that included a "defined territory" as a component of the term "peoples." (Persons, People, or Peoples—When To Use Each)

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

(QUESTIONS)
SO!

Do the Israelis have these "inalienable rights" that are the "rights" granted "to all peoples?"

Do one "people" (say the Arab Palestinians) have (superior) rights that nullify or impair the recognition of the rights of any other people (say the Israelis)? Can the rights of the Arab Palestinians take preference over the rights of the Israelis and subordinate the rights of the Israelis?

(COMMENT)

The arguments of the Arab Palestinians and the pro-Arab Palestinians often seem to be contrived to suit the political agenda and objectives of the belligerents in the conflict. These contrived notions are assembled to support and justify the continued armed (purposely unpeaceful) Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. As our friend "Hollie" points out in Posting #18754: Palestinian Authority foreign minister denounces Israel sending vaccines to foreign allies as ‘political blackmail’. This is but one simple example of how the Hostile Arab Palestinian are supporting leadership that has no true interest in the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Links?

Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

can see a very marked difference between the development of Israel (a very positive outcome) and the development (a less successful outcome) of the surrounding Arab-related nations Israel has had wealth and power shoveled in its direction for over a hundred years while the surrounding...

www.usmessageboard.com

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

On what basis do you discriminate against Jews?

Who said "These rights are reserved for the people without exception."?

International law.

I know, Israel does not give a rat's behind about international law.

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

What "international law" allows you to discriminate against Jews?

And yet you're the one here suggesting it shouldn't be upheld equally.

No I don't.

Let's see...
you've posted this,
does it apply to Jews "without exception"?

These are the inalienable rights of all peoples inside their defined territory.
1) The right to self determination without external interference.
2) The right to independence and sovereignty.
3) The right to territorial integrity.
None of these allow any foreign intervention. These rights are reserved for the people without exception.

You are missing the point.

See, once asked in a straightforward manner,
you can't even bring yourself to say that Jews have the same rights.
That's exactly the point, the only consistent point in all you've been posting so far.

So why do you insist Jews are excluded from those "inalienable rights to all peoples"?

You need to reread what I posted.

Ah yes, the “Tinmore Rebuttal”: when called out on his bullshit and lies, he makes it seem like you didn’t properly read his post

 

[San Souci]

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?

There is no such thing as a "Palistinian". There has never been a Kingdom of "Palistine". There has never been a free State or Republic called Palistine. Through an error in Historical FACTS ,the Brittish called Judea "Palistine". It was the JEWS who were referred to as "Palistinians" from WW1 till 1948. The Myth was expunged after 1948.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: I think even I can understand what you are saying. But as a sidebar issue: I'm wondering, where you derived your definition that included a "defined territory" as a component of the term "peoples." (Persons, People, or Peoples—When To Use Each)

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

(QUESTIONS)
SO!

Do the Israelis have these "inalienable rights" that are the "rights" granted "to all peoples?"

Do one "people" (say the Arab Palestinians) have (superior) rights that nullify or impair the recognition of the rights of any other people (say the Israelis)? Can the rights of the Arab Palestinians take preference over the rights of the Israelis and subordinate the rights of the Israelis?

(COMMENT)

The arguments of the Arab Palestinians and the pro-Arab Palestinians often seem to be contrived to suit the political agenda and objectives of the belligerents in the conflict. These contrived notions are assembled to support and justify the continued armed (purposely unpeaceful) Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. As our friend "Hollie" points out in Posting #18754: Palestinian Authority foreign minister denounces Israel sending vaccines to foreign allies as ‘political blackmail’. This is but one simple example of how the Hostile Arab Palestinian are supporting leadership that has no true interest in the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Reread my post.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.​

Which part(s) are incorrect and why?

 

[Hollie]

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

BLUF: I think even I can understand what you are saying. But as a sidebar issue: I'm wondering, where you derived your definition that included a "defined territory" as a component of the term "peoples." (Persons, People, or Peoples—When To Use Each)

The inalienable Rights of the Arab Palestinians DO NOT NEGATE the inalienable Rights of the Israels.

Let's see if I can make this simple enough that even you can understand it.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.

The Palestinians are a people because they are the nationals of the defined territory of Palestine.

(QUESTIONS)
SO!

Do the Israelis have these "inalienable rights" that are the "rights" granted "to all peoples?"

Do one "people" (say the Arab Palestinians) have (superior) rights that nullify or impair the recognition of the rights of any other people (say the Israelis)? Can the rights of the Arab Palestinians take preference over the rights of the Israelis and subordinate the rights of the Israelis?

(COMMENT)

The arguments of the Arab Palestinians and the pro-Arab Palestinians often seem to be contrived to suit the political agenda and objectives of the belligerents in the conflict. These contrived notions are assembled to support and justify the continued armed (purposely unpeaceful) Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence. As our friend "Hollie" points out in Posting #18754: Palestinian Authority foreign minister denounces Israel sending vaccines to foreign allies as ‘political blackmail’. This is but one simple example of how the Hostile Arab Palestinian are supporting leadership that has no true interest in the people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Reread my post.

"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories. The French are a people because they are the nationals of France. The British are a people because they are the nationals of Britain. The Mexicans are a people because they are the nationals of Mexico, and on. Collectively they are the peoples of the world. The French do not have inalienable rights in Britain because they are not the nationals of that territory.​

Which part(s) are incorrect and why?

Why didn’t you read the earlier response?

 

[Hollie]

OK. And the point being?

Israel Gives Vaccine to Far-Off Allies, as Palestinians Wait (Published 2021)

The donations will go to nations like the Czech Republic and Honduras that pledged to move diplomats to Jerusalem. Critics say Israel has an obligation to inoculate Palestinians under its occupation.

www.nytimes.com