Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[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?

Why didn’t you read the earlier response?

I did. Which part of my post was incorrect?

 

[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?

I did. Which part of my post was incorrect?

What didn’t you understand in the earlier response?

 

[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?

Why didn’t you read the earlier response?

I did. Which part of my post was incorrect?

What didn’t you understand in the earlier response?

All deflection aside, I found little relevance in the previous posts.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: You just kill me.

Which part(s) are incorrect and why?

(POINT of WHAT is INCORRECT)
"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories.
[/QUOTE]
(COMMENT)

Theoretically → "Inalienable Rights" are the same for everyone, no matter where you are standing or your origin. A defined territory has nothing to do with it. WHY? (RHETORICAL) Because any territory can be politically redefined.

The Mandate for Palestine was within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory selected by the said Principal Allied Powers. Previous to the Mandatory Power selected boundaries, the territory in question was subject to Ottoman boundaries.

"Inalienable Rights" have nothing what-so-ever to do with how the ground on which the people are standing is defined. But, the concept of what "Inalienable Rights" are, is NOT universally accepted. The "Inalienable Rights" of Tibetans is not the same as that of Crimeans, which are still different again from those recognized in Iran.

And before you go off half-cocked, let me remind you that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT law. The various conventions (almost 2 dozen categories of them) on man-made Universal Human Rights Instruments are quite lengthy.

The list of Constitutional "Inalienable Rights" is rather short and sweet: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The concept is a bit different. So, you are talking about something that is as tangible as the whisps of air.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: You just kill me.

Which part(s) are incorrect and why?

(POINT of WHAT is INCORRECT)
"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories.

(COMMENT)

Theoretically → "Inalienable Rights" are the same for everyone, no matter where you are standing or your origin. A defined territory has nothing to do with it. WHY? (RHETORICAL) Because any territory can be politically redefined.

The Mandate for Palestine was within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory selected by the said Principal Allied Powers. Previous to the Mandatory Power selected boundaries, the territory in question was subject to Ottoman boundaries.

"Inalienable Rights" have nothing what-so-ever to do with how the ground on which the people are standing is defined. But, the concept of what "Inalienable Rights" are, is NOT universally accepted. The "Inalienable Rights" of Tibetans is not the same as that of Crimeans, which are still different again from those recognized in Iran.

And before you go off half-cocked, let me remind you that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT law. The various conventions (almost 2 dozen categories of them) on man-made Universal Human Rights Instruments are quite lengthy.

The list of Constitutional "Inalienable Rights" is rather short and sweet: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The concept is a bit different. So, you are talking about something that is as tangible as the whisps of air.

Most Respectfully,
R
[/QUOTE]
The rights I listed are territorial.

 

[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?

I did. Which part of my post was incorrect?

What didn’t you understand in the earlier response?

All deflection aside, I found little relevance in the previous posts.

Why put aside your deflections?

 

[Hollie]

The rights I listed are territorial.

Along with the Treaty of Lausanne inventing your imagined “country of Pal’istan” and your imagined “new states” (you never identified those “new states”, BTW), when was there ever a “Universal Declaration of Territorial Rights”?

Are you going to retroactively apply that particular Declaration in favor of the Arabs-Moslems?

 

[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.

Deflection.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rania Khalek slams phony impeachment "soap opera"

 

[Hollie]

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: While this is about a US Domestic Matter (ie not about Palestine or Palestinians) it is actually an interesting podcast (Red Lines with Anya Parampil and Rania Khalek of Soapbox) worth listening to.

Rania Khalek slams phony impeachment "soap opera"

(COMMENT)

This is Off-Topic, but a bit different from what our friend (P F Tinmore) usually puts up.

Remembering, of course, that the podcast called The Gray Zone, • Soap Box, • and Red Line are allied as 21st Century Commentators.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[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?

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.

As usual, you've got it all backwards,
however it's quiet a spectacle to see how a simple question about Arafat,
triggers you to launch into theorizing new semantics as "proof Palestinians are a people"...

But none of that matters because you will immediately defy this criteria anyway,
as you do with all laws, real and those you make up once seeing they benefit Israel.

So let's go back to my question about Arafat,
and see how your theory of "rights of defined territories"
can be used to justify an Egyptian officer's claim to sovereignty in Levant,
prove that the people he's representing as 'Palestinians' are of that territory unit,
or that those inalienable rights depend on the actual presence in that "defined territory"?

 

[toastman]

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

BLUF: You just kill me.

Which part(s) are incorrect and why?

(POINT of WHAT is INCORRECT)
"inalienable rights to all peoples" Who are the Peoples? Peoples are the nationals of defined territories.

(COMMENT)

Theoretically → "Inalienable Rights" are the same for everyone, no matter where you are standing or your origin. A defined territory has nothing to do with it. WHY? (RHETORICAL) Because any territory can be politically redefined.

The Mandate for Palestine was within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Mandatory selected by the said Principal Allied Powers. Previous to the Mandatory Power selected boundaries, the territory in question was subject to Ottoman boundaries.

"Inalienable Rights" have nothing what-so-ever to do with how the ground on which the people are standing is defined. But, the concept of what "Inalienable Rights" are, is NOT universally accepted. The "Inalienable Rights" of Tibetans is not the same as that of Crimeans, which are still different again from those recognized in Iran.

And before you go off half-cocked, let me remind you that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is NOT law. The various conventions (almost 2 dozen categories of them) on man-made Universal Human Rights Instruments are quite lengthy.

The list of Constitutional "Inalienable Rights" is rather short and sweet: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The concept is a bit different. So, you are talking about something that is as tangible as the whisps of air.

Most Respectfully,
R

The rights I listed are territorial.
[/QUOTE]
Have you ever posted anything in the Israel Palestine section that is factual ? Every time you post something , it is proven to be wrong by another poster. I mean, if you posted one lie here, one lie there, it would be SOMEWHAT understandable. But every post you make is false, and proven to be so.

 

[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.

As usual, you've got it all backwards,
however it's quiet a spectacle to see how a simple question about Arafat,
triggers you to launch into theorizing new semantics as "proof Palestinians are a people"...

But none of that matters because you will immediately defy this criteria anyway,
as you do with all laws, real and those you make up once seeing they benefit Israel.

So let's go back to my question about Arafat,
and see how your theory of "rights of defined territories"
can be used to justify an Egyptian officer's claim to sovereignty in Levant,
prove that the people he's representing as 'Palestinians' are of that territory unit,
or that those inalienable rights depend on the actual presence in that "defined territory"?

Arafat was a Palestinian.

The rights I posted are all territorial, They are national rights.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Arafat was a Palestinian.

You misspelled Egyptian.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external.

◈ Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. ​

​

◈ External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. (However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.)​

SOURCE: ​

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.

The rights I posted are all territorial, They are national rights.

(CRITICAL QUESTION)

Oh Prey tell! Just what "nation" are you associating these "rights" if they are (as you claim) "national rights?"

(COMMENT)

In theory, that all external entities have the obligation under the UN Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development... All people have the rights as you have posted them, to include both the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians.

The Arab Palestinians have no to conduct an armed struggle or pursue hostile activities against the Israelis that have exercised their right of self-determination - to determine their political status - the right to independence, sovereignty - and → to protect their territorial integrity from the acts of aggression of interference (from whatever quarter) in the pursuit of these goals and objectives initially outlined in a UN Recommendation.

The fact that military pressure from all sides was exerted upon the Israelis by the Arab League, causing a shift in the establishment and follow-on protective measures does not give the Arab Palestinians a foundation for claims. The various external entities, from 1946 to the present time, that have worked tirelessly to interrupt the rights of the Israelis has only served to backfire on the Arab Palestinians today. The Arab Palestinians are the proponent agency for the continued Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, directed against the regional peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

BLUF: Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external.

◈ Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference. ​

​

◈ External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. (However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.)​

SOURCE: View attachment 462870 ​

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.

The rights I posted are all territorial, They are national rights.

(CRITICAL QUESTION)

Oh Prey tell! Just what "nation" are you associating these "rights" if they are (as you claim) "national rights?"

(COMMENT)

In theory, that all external entities have the obligation under the UN Charter to respect the right of others to self-determination and to determine freely their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development... All people have the rights as you have posted them, to include both the Israelis and the Arab Palestinians.

The Arab Palestinians have no to conduct an armed struggle or pursue hostile activities against the Israelis that have exercised their right of self-determination - to determine their political status - the right to independence, sovereignty - and → to protect their territorial integrity from the acts of aggression of interference (from whatever quarter) in the pursuit of these goals and objectives initially outlined in a UN Recommendation.

The fact that military pressure from all sides was exerted upon the Israelis by the Arab League, causing a shift in the establishment and follow-on protective measures does not give the Arab Palestinians a foundation for claims. The various external entities, from 1946 to the present time, that have worked tirelessly to interrupt the rights of the Israelis has only served to backfire on the Arab Palestinians today. The Arab Palestinians are the proponent agency for the continued Jihadism, Fedayeen Activism, Hostile Insurgency Operations, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence, directed against the regional peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

BLUF: Self-determination has two aspects, internal and external.

◈ Internal self-determination is the right of the people of a state to govern themselves without outside interference.

◈ External self-determination is the right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination, including formation of their own independent state. (However, independence is not the only possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination.)
SOURCE: View attachment 462870

Israel is outside interference and alien domination,

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the human rights of the peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;​

​

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not recognize the right to self determination and independence of all peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

​

21. Strongly condemns the expansionist activities of Israel in the Middle East and the continual bombing of Palestinian civilians, which constitute a serious obstacle to the realization of the self determination and independence of the Palestinian people;​

​

A/RES/37/43

 

[Mindful]

On a Spring day in 2018 during the March of Return riots, Palestinians at the Gaza border flew a swastika-emblazoned kite carrying a Molotov cocktail into Israel. From the black smoke of burning tires arose another swastika, only this time interposed between two Palestinian flags. Was it a mere coincidence that this also occurred on Adolf Hitler’s birthday?

The genocidal imagery that accompanied the rioters in Gaza has a sordid history that many anti-Zionist activists conveniently forget and some Palestinians embrace entirely.

The Nazis murdered 6,000,000 Jews and sought to destroy any trace that Jewish life had ever existed; yet it’s a common practice for anti-Zionists to liken Israel to the Nazis. Libels of this sort are quite common on college campuses.

Last June, for example, Florida State University (FSU) students discovered that the school’s student senate president, Ahmad Daraldik, had created a virulently antisemitic website to explain his (incorrect) argument that “the Holocaust never ended, it just moved to Palestine.” Unsurprisingly, the FSU chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine’s subsequent petition defending Daraldik completely ignored this appalling hatred.

The Palestinians Compare Israel to the Nazis, But They Were the Real Collaborators With Hitler - Algemeiner.com

On a Spring day in 2018 during the March of Return riots, Palestinians at the Gaza border flew a swastika-emblazoned kite carrying a Molotov cocktail into Israel. From the black smoke of burning tires arose another swastika, only this time interposed between two Palestinian flags. Was it a mere...

www.algemeiner.com

 

[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.

As usual, you've got it all backwards,
however it's quiet a spectacle to see how a simple question about Arafat,
triggers you to launch into theorizing new semantics as "proof Palestinians are a people"...

But none of that matters because you will immediately defy this criteria anyway,
as you do with all laws, real and those you make up once seeing they benefit Israel.

So let's go back to my question about Arafat,
and see how your theory of "rights of defined territories"
can be used to justify an Egyptian officer's claim to sovereignty in Levant,
prove that the people he's representing as 'Palestinians' are of that territory unit,
or that those inalienable rights depend on the actual presence in that "defined territory"?

Arafat was a Palestinian.

The rights I posted are all territorial, They are national rights.

Three swings. Three misses.

 

[RoccoR]

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

BLUF: When you say → the Denial to the Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights! Are we talking about domestic law? (National Law 'vs' International Law). A/RES/37/43 of 3 December 1982 Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination is NOT Binding Law. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter prohibits the United Nations from intervening in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; with the exception of measures under Chapter VII.

Article 3 - International Boundary • Peace is hereby established between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel
Boundary is Delimited ANNEX 1(a)
​

You have to follow the Jordan-Israel International Boundary closely. THEN tell me where the State of Palestine is?

Israel is outside interference and alien domination,

(COMMENT)

Point #1: You did not show the universally accepted definition of " inalienable national rights."

Point #2: A/RES/37/43 of 3 December 1982 Universal Realization of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination was adopted in late 1982. No person shall be criminally responsible under this Statute for conduct prior to the entry into force of the Statute. (Non-retroactivity Article 24 • pg 14 • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court • ratione personae)

Point #3: Are you claiming that the Palestinian Government (such that it is) Governments does not recognize the Right to Self-Determination and Independence of all peoples in Israel to establish Israel? IF so, THEN I agree! ... The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) → from the very time of the USCOP recommendation adopted by the UN → has attempted to override the Independence through the Right of Self-Determination by the National Council for the Jewish State (elected by the Jewish body in the former Mandate for Palestine). So, yes I agree, the HoAP is NOT following the concept of self-determination.

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians are NOT under Israeli colonial and foreign domination and Israeli subjugation. The Arab Palestinians rejected participation in the establishment of self-governing institutions.

​

◈ Between 1918 and 1920, the Territory was under Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).​

​

◈ Between 1920 and 1948, the Territory was under the Administration of the Mandate for Palestine.​

​

◈ Between 1949 and 1967, the territory, less the Gaza Strip, West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and Jordan, were under the effective control or sovereignty of members of the Arab League.​

​

◈ Between August 1988 and the present, the HM King of Jordan abandons all sovereignty over the West Bank territory; relinquishing it into the effective control of the Israelis. No Arab Palestinian government established.​

​

Point #5: A/RES/37/43 does not define the scope and nature of the alleged expansionist activity.

Point #6: The State of Israel has not in the past and does not now, have a specific policy or program that directs attacks by bombardment which treats (as a single military objective) a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects are prohibited. (Rule 13. Area Bombardment)

​

◈ Rule 23. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.​

​

◈ Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.​

​

◈ Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.​

​

The HoAP, as a consistent tactic, uses densely populated areas and failed to remove civilian persons and objects under its control, from rocket and mortar launch sites, as well a munitions storage, and other high-value targets, as a means to shield offensive operations against Israeli sovereign territory.​

It is my layman's opinion that the International Criminal Court (ICC), both the Prosecutor's Office and ICC-01/18-143 05 February 2021 | Pre-Trial Chamber I | Decision
that contributes (by means of legal support and official endorsement) to the furtherance and encouragement of one or more offenses as set forth and elaborated within the 19 international legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts by actively assisting (though malfeasance) 'Hamas’, including ‘Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem' (Item 9, Group II, List of persons, groups, and entities, 8 January 2019, COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/25).

The ICC, with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of an offense as set forth 19 international legal instruments with emphasis on:

◈ 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism​

​

◈ 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings​

​

◈ 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages​

​

◈ 1949 Article 68, Fourth Geneva Convention • Offenses Solely Intended to Harm the Occupying Power​

The Prosecutor's Office and the Pre-Trial Chamber have brought induced a lack of confidence in the court, a level of politicization that brings with it a measure of discredit and distrust in the court.

Just One Man's Opinion,

Most Respectfully,
R