# Finally.........A Palestinian Contribution To Mankind



## Hossfly (Jul 17, 2016)

It seems that some ISIS terrorists are praising Hamas terrorists for developing a more efficient and faster way to kill more innocent civilians quicker than ever before.


.
As jihadists around the world expressed their joy over Thursday evening’s terror attack in southern France, one ISIS sympathizer hailed Palestinian terrorists for pioneering the use of vehicles to attack civilians, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) reported on Friday.

“Killing by ramming using civilian cars and trucks is an idea born from the Maqdisi [Palestinian] mind, which has an innovative nature of thinking up jihad tactics,” read a posting on a pro-ISIS forum online. “Yesterday they taught us [about] the explosive vest, and many plans for street fighting, and today they taught us this tactic. May Allah bless Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem, and may Allah bless all of the Levant…Oh Aqsa, we are coming.”

Vehicular terrorism has become a common method employed by Palestinian Jihadists over the past year. According to Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since September 2015, 46 car ramming attacks have been carried out against Israelis, both injuring and killing scores of civilians and security personnel.


Palestinians Hailed for Developing ‘Innovative’ Car-Ramming Terror Tactic Used in Nice Attack


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 17, 2016)

When death by vehicles in the USA occurs it's not just old men having a seizure..


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 18, 2016)

Hossfly, et al,

"Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi"  Now there is a name of the past.  And still a West Bank Palestinian that routinely inspires violence.  in fact, he has been imprisoned several times, by the Jordanian Authorities for encouraging radical Sunni Jihadist militants into terrorist activity.  And it was in one of these terms of incarceration that he met Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi _(of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) fame and later AQI)_ and became his inspirational teacher.  



Hossfly said:


> As jihadists around the world expressed their joy over Thursday evening’s terror attack in southern France, one ISIS sympathizer hailed Palestinian terrorists for pioneering the use of vehicles to attack civilians, the Middle East Media Research Institute(MEMRI) reported on Friday.
> 
> “Killing by ramming using civilian cars and trucks is an idea born from the Maqdisi [Palestinian] mind, which has an innovative nature of thinking up jihad tactics,” read a posting on a pro-ISIS forum online. “Yesterday they taught us [about] the explosive vest, and many plans for street fighting, and today they taught us this tactic. May Allah bless Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem, and may Allah bless all of the Levant…Oh Aqsa, we are coming.”


*(COMMENT)*

While Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi is long since dead (Killed in a USAF Air Strike in 2006), the organization of the evolved into DAESH _[JTJ (1999–2004) --- QJBR Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Biladal-Rafidayn (2004–06) Mujahideen Shura Council (2006), Islamic State of Iraq (2006–13), DAESH State of Iraq and the Levant (2013–14)
and eventually - what we have come to know today as DAESH "Islamic State" (June 2014–present)__]_.  While we don't think of Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi as the father of DAESH, he was a top Radical Sunni Jihadist and Palestinian in the early years who's enlightenment was key to the evolutionary process that lead to the development of DAESH.

It was impossible to have foreseen the connection and impact that "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" would have on present day Radical Islamic Terrorist and Jihadist.  Maybe the whole chain of events might have been altered if "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi" early-on in the fight against terrorism.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 18, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Hossfly, et al,
> 
> "Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi"  Now there is a name of the past.  And still a West Bank Palestinian that routinely inspires violence.  in fact, he has been imprisoned several times, by the Jordanian Authorities for encouraging radical Sunni Jihadist militants into terrorist activity.  And it was in one of these terms of incarceration that he met Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi _(of Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) fame and later AQI)_ and became his inspirational teacher.
> 
> ...



Palestinians will be Palestinians.  Leave it to the Zionists in Israel to actually try to make peace with them.  Shame on them.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 19, 2016)

can we say 9-11 by Al Queda was inspired by the Palestinians, the first hijackers?

When plane hijackings were Palestinian terrorists' weapon of choice - Israel News


----------



## MJB12741 (Jul 22, 2016)

Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands.  Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 22, 2016)

MJB12741, et al,

A lot of people use this word: "Zionism;" but it seem to me that I cannot use is because I'm not sure what Zionism means in terms of the the 21st Century.  In fact, I'm not sure that the meaning is universally understood.

•  Is there one, and only one definition of Zionism?  

∆  Is Zionism strictly religious?

§  Is there a left-wing/right-wing political Zionism?
§  Is there a spiritual Zionism?
§  Is there and ethical or moral Zionism?​
One might ask if Zionism evolves with the real-world changes in the political situation?   Does Zionism adapt?  OR  Does Zionism remain static?  Is Zionism have a common understanding within the Jewish Population?  Or is it the case that Zionism is understood differently between that population Outside the Middle East, regionally, and internally  within Israel?

What is "THE" Zionist Plan today?  What does that mean?



MJB12741 said:


> Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda in placating endless Palestinian demands.  Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


*(COMMENT)*

There is no aspect of Zionist agenda that drives the diplomatic relationship between the Government of Israel (GOI) and the various uncoordinated aspects within the Government of Palestine.  For that to be the case, then Zionism would have a "political" component to it with all the baggage associated with it _(left wing - centrist - right-wing)_.


			
				Martin J. Raffel served for 27 years as Senior Vice President at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs IN PART said:
			
		

> Zionism is classically understood as the movement of the Jewish people to reconstitute its national sovereignty in our historic homeland after 2,000 years of Diaspora life. There were many expressions of Zionism, from a utopian Socialist version to cultural Zionism to religious Zionism — and many other flavors mixed in.
> 
> Today, the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right of national self-determination in Israel — Zionism’s basic narrative — is under assault.
> SOURCE:  Zionism in the 21st Century  Times of Israel 20 July, 2015





MJB12741 said:


> Why doesn't Israel just treat the Palestinians like their own Arab brothers in surrounding Arab countries do & LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!


*(COMMENT)*

Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.  There is no reason to believe that the Arab Palestinian will abandon Hostile activity if the GOI.  If Israel were to withdraw all activity under the GOI bace to the 1949 Armistice, that would allow the Arab League to amass fast moving forces within:

•  21 miles of Haifa
•  Nine Miles of Netanya
•  11 Miles of Tel Aviv
•  less than  22 Miles of Ashod 
............∆  Additionally, this would bring several approach paths and climb corridors within Man-Portable Anti-Aircraft Weapons range.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741, et al,
> 
> A lot of people use this word: "Zionism;" but it seem to me that I cannot use is because I'm not sure what Zionism means in terms of the the 21st Century.  In fact, I'm not sure that the meaning is universally understood.
> •  Is there one, and only one definition of Zionism?
> ...


Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.​
Indeed, the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians. That was their goal a hundred years ago and the pursue that goal to today. Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741, et al,
> ...









 And you have a supported link to your claim other than a biased islamonazi one that seems to be your only sources these days ?


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Let's jettison the irrelevant here.

*  Your observation:  Settler colonialism is not an event, it is a process. 

COLONIZATION: is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory.  It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population  *Colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
EVENT: a thing that happens, especially one of importance.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
DURATION:  The time during which something continues.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
COLONY:  a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country.
Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
§ Under the Palestinian approved agreement (Oslo Accords), the establishment of Area C; Israel has Full Israeli civil and security control.  ​The establishment of a colony is not instantaneous.  Whoever there is a threshold when, at one moment, there is no colony and the next moment, there is a recognizable colony.  The moment that an area under the full or partial political control of another country, is an event.

This line of discussion is a diversion from the principle topic.


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Well, there are several good reasons why Israel stands by their current path.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

*Political thought and strategies of Hamas in light of the Arab uprisings*
01 April, 2013 *By Khalid Mish’al*

*Hamas’ vision for the Palestinian question*

9. We hold onto Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian sacred sites. We will not give them up, nor will we relinquish any part of them. They are our right, our essence, our history, our present and our future. Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine and is cherished in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims as a sign of their status and pride. ‘Israel’ has no legitimacy or right to Jerusalem at all, nor does it have any legitimacy or right to any part of Palestine. All Israeli actions in Jerusalem, such as Judaisation, entrenchment of settlements, falsification of facts and attempts to usurp our history are unacceptable.

10. We stand firm on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals, and their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, whether in the occupied territories of 1948 or 1967 – that is, to all of Palestine. We refuse to compromise on this right in any way. At the same time, we reject all land resettlement and alternative homeland projects.​ A century ago, there was no Zionist Voice that exercised any authority over any project _(Hebrew, Jewish, Zionist or other)_ in the former Ottoman/Turk territory for which the Title and Rights went to the Allied Powers.  The allegation "that the Zionist goal is all of Palestine without the Palestinians" is actually the  application of the 1948 Arab Higher Committee threat that:

 "The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense. ​
Prior to 1948, their was no Jewish activity that could act upon any plan as suggested.  The HoAP periodically raise such accusation in order to confuse the issue.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Let's jettison the irrelevant here.
> 
> ...


*Settler colonialism*
is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.

The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (_e.g._, the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".

Settler colonialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
Of course this is what we have witnessed during the so called mandate period and continues through today with the colonial expansion in the West Bank. Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> *Settler colonialism *is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region...



See, right away you have a problem with the definition you provide.  The Jewish people are NOT a foreign people moving to a region.  

(I know many people try to foreignize them:  labeling them as Europeans or as only a religious cult and not a culture, inventing bizarre Khazar theories.  But the Jewish people originated FROM that territory. Its their homeland. This is factually true.)


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 6, 2016)

P F Tinmore,   et al,

Yeah, I saw that.  It is a problem using Wikipedia as the source source on a legal interpretation of intent.  This is a continuation of the diversion.



P F Tinmore said:


> *Settler colonialism*
> is a form of colonial formation whereby foreign people move into a region. An imperial power oversees the immigration of these settlers who consent, often only temporarily, to government by that authority. This colonization sometimes leads, by a variety of means, to depopulation of the previous inhabitants, and the settlers take over the land left vacant by the previous residents. Unlike other forms of colonialism, the "colonizing authority" (the imperial power) is not always the same nationality as the "colonizing workforce" (the settlers) in cases of settler colonialism. The settlers are, however, generally viewed by the colonizing authority as racially superior to the previous inhabitants, giving their social movements and political demands greater legitimacy than those of colonized peoples in the eyes of the home government.
> 
> The land is the key resource in settler colonies, whereas natural (e.g. gold, cotton, oil) and human (e.g. labor, existing trade networks, convertible souls) resources are the main motivation behind other forms of colonialism. Normal colonialism typically ends, whereas settler colonialism lasts indefinitely, except in the rare event of complete evacuation (_e.g._, the Lost Colony of Roanoke) or settler decolonization. The historian of race and settler colonialism Patrick Wolfe writes that "settler colonialism destroys to replace" and insists that "invasion", in settler colonial contexts, is "a structure, not an event".
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Lost Colony of Roanoke, as an example, was a colonial expedition, under the authority of the British Sovereign, to extend sovereignty under the rule of "Discovery."  It is a form of "Occupation."

Occupation was often preceded by discovery that is the realization of the existence of a particular piece of land. In the early period of European discovery, in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, the mere realization or sighting was sufficient to constitute title to territory. As time passed, something more was required and this took the form of symbolic act of taking possession, whether by raising of flags or by formal declarations. By the Eighteenth Century, the effective control came to be required together with discovery to constitute title to territory.[17] ​
The entire body of the League of Nations (The Council) understood that there was no "Colonial" intent in the establishment of Mandate control.  There was a direct intent, plainly understood, that the Allied Powers would be instrumental in the establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) and that the Allied Powers would facilitate immigration in favor of that decision; with the JNH to be a carve-out from holdings under Enemy Occupied Territory Administration; --- from which the Allied Powers were successors to all Titles and Rights.

The constant attempt by the belligerent and Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) --- for the last century --- to undermine that intention and convince people otherwise, is merely an attempt to secure territory by force for which the occupied enemy inhabitants were refused to participate in the Article 22 Tutelage or to accomplish those set preparatory to independence in the same fashion as the Jewish Community and the Jordanian Community.



P F Tinmore said:


> Remember, both the Zionists and the British spoke openly about their colonial project. It was not until about 1960 when colonialism was getting a bad rap that the narrative was changed to self determination. Of course there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true.


*(COMMENT)*

I don't want to give a lecture on the displacement of Colonialism; but let's just say that when the UN Charter was written, colonialism was on its last leg.  Again, none of this is important to the resolution of the dispute between the failing State of Palestine _(the Arab State in A/RES/181)_ and the thriving State of Israel _(the Jewish State in A/RES/181)_.

There is NO --- repeat "NO" --- territory for which the UN Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (_General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960_) applies.  For all that has been written on this very issue, the HoAP constantly argue this ridiculous position that a Colonial Power introduced the immigration to expand colonial power.  This was 100% wrong.   While the British maintained a colonial power at that time, the intent had been to establish the JNH.  In these contemporary times, there are no "*Non-Self-Governing Territories" *anywhere in the Middle East, including Palestine.

As for expanding into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, --- at the time the Israeli occupied these areas, NEITHER were under the sovereignty or control of the Palestinians.  As explained previously (_Posting #506 - Lest We Forget_) at different times the relationships were different do to the shift in the political situation. 



​
As for this allegation that:  "there is nothing about colonialism having the right to self determination but it is hawked regularly like it was true."  This is simply twisting the facts.  When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights."  But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination _(that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable)_.  This vassilation between two concepts is a symptom of a politically psychopathic dissociative identity disorder _(Palestinians will shift to any position or any identity as long as they can continue the jihad and insurgency)_.  

Remember, Israel never occupied HoAP Territory.  The failing State of Palestine materialized inside of "Dependent Territory" on Israel _(later shifting to a more "Protectorate" type status)_, as an unchallenged right to self-determination.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Aug 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> When the HoAP find it convenient, they cry foul and argue they have this "universal and inalienable rights."  But when it is inconvenient, they attempt to twist the facts such that they can argue Israel has no right to self-determination _(that would mean that it is not universal and not inalienable)_.​




It is a constant source of amazement and amusement to me that Team Palestine regularly insists on universal and inalienable rights for all peoples except the Jewish people.​


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 6, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,   et al,
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.  It is a problem using Wikipedia as the source source on a legal interpretation of intent.  This is a continuation of the diversion.
> 
> ...


The Zionists said it was colonization. The British said it was colonization. They both had colonial offices to implement their plan. Historians say it is colonization. The Palestinians, and others, call it colonialism. The facts on the ground call it colonialism.

Here is what the UN says:

3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
*Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination* to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

A/RES/37/43.  Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights​
And *you* say it isn't.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Here is what the UN says:
> 
> 3.   Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the
> *Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination* to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national
> ...




...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ... 


All peoples, Tinmore.  Including the Jewish people.  Two state solution.  So why aren't you arguing for the two state solution along with me and the rest of us?


----------



## Hossfly (Aug 7, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what the UN says:
> ...


Because Tinmore wants a Jew free Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 7, 2016)

Hossfly said:


> Because Tinmore wants a Jew free Palestine.



Tinmore believes that genocide, ethnic cleansing and exile are legitimate ways to remove a people's inalienable rights.


At least when its done to the Jews.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,

Yes, our friend Shusha has hit the nail on the head.



Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what the UN says:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.  These were often characteristic of the 1982 A/RES/37/43, a Resolution that was overtaken by events.  Remember, this Resolution came just 6 months after the brutal midday attack on 9 August 1982 took place in the Marais district, a largely Jewish neighborhood in the centre of Paris.
A French Magistrate issued international arrest warrants for three Palestinians on evidence linking them with carrying out the attack. 

In 1982 there was no effort, by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to exercise self-determination and establish a Palestinian State.  In 1982, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were territories formerly under the foreign control of Jordan _(Annexed the West Bank in 1950)_ and Egypt _(dissolved the All Palestine Government and placed the Gaza Strip under an Military Governorship in 1959)_; respectively.  

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.

*(TWO STATE SOLUTION)*

The Arab-Palestinians are playing a Three-Card Monte Game on their position on "Borders."  Some express the opinion that everything West of the Jordan River, within the former Mandate boundaries is rightfully Palestinian.  Some say that no power has the right to establish any kind of Jewish National Home (JNH) anywhere in Arab Lands.  Then there are those that suggest that the Palestinians should pay no penalty for their initiation and subsequent loss of the 1948 War for Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, and the 1973 Sneak Attack.

The 4 June 1967 border, which the Hostile Arab Palestinians defined as the 1949 Armistice Line (Armistice Agreements with Egypt and Jordan) is the internationally-recognized border between Israel and the occupied State of Palestine.   This is wrong, in that, in connection with the PLO State of Palestine, the Armistice Lines had no relevance.  The Armistice Lines had mean only to the parties to the conflict (Israel in conflict with Egypt and Jordan).  The Armistice Lines cease to have any meaning on the establishment of the Peace Treaties between the Parties to the Conflict and a new set of International Boundaries were recognized.  A basic principle of international law is that no state may acquire territory by force. Israel has no valid claim to any part of the territory it occupied in 1967.  

I had to laugh at PLO Secretary General Dr. Saeb Erekat said:  “if the members of international community are serious about the two-state solution they must, at the very least, recognize the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders. This will send a clear message to Israel that in the 21st century, borders are determined by international law and not by settlement colonies that are built on land that was acquired by force.”   But what is unspoken is that in 1948, it was the Arab League that initiated the act of g when they launched a coordinated attack across their borders and outside their jurisdiction.  The rule on the acquisition by force applies to those countries which intimate military action to secure additional territory.  It does not apply to a country which is attacked by the Arab League, which losses ground to the defender.

Finally, these "settlements" were established in negotiated and Palestinians Approved Area "C;"  full Israeli civil and security control.  Nothing prohibits the building of settlements on the basis of an approved negated accord; and not undergone the agreed upon dispute resolution process.  And the HoAP have consistently declined to open the dispute resolution process.  The HoAP have absolutely no legitimate basis to complain.

*Article XV: Resolution of disputes:   
Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements: *

The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team 
_(in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference)_ _(the "Palestinian Delegation")_, 
representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict,
recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, 
lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process. ​
1. Disputes arising out of the application or interpretation of this Declaration of Principles, or any subsequent agreements pertaining to the interim period, shall be resolved by negotiations through the Joint Liaison Committee to be established pursuant to Article X above. 

2. Disputes which cannot be settled by negotiations may be resolved by a mechanism of conciliation to be agreed upon by the parties. 

3. The parties may agree to submit to arbitration disputes relating to the interim period, which cannot be settled through conciliation. To this end, upon the agreement of both parties, the parties will establish an arbitration committee. ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,   et al,
> ...








 THAT IS CORRECT IT ISNT, AND NO MANNER OF TWISTING AND MANIPULATING RESOLUTIONS WILL CHANGE THE TRUTH. WHO HAS DENIED THE ARAB MUSLIMS CALLING THEMSELVES PALESTINIANS FROM EXERCISING THEIR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY, NATIONAL UNITY AND SOVERIEGNTY OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. POINT TO ONE ACTION BY ISRAEL THAT HAS BREACHED ANY OF THESE RIGHTS THAT WAS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED AS A MEANS OF DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> 
> Yes, our friend Shusha has hit the nail on the head.
> 
> ...


Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.​
It is funny you should say that.

The resolution I posted referenced international law. The resolution itself is non binding but the referenced international law is not.

Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.​
What about the Palestinian's right to territorial integrity. Israel set up shop in Palestine without permission or treaty.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 7, 2016)

Hezbollah invented the truck bomb.

McVeigh liked the idea so much that he copycatted them.

1983 Beirut barracks bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I don't think you understand your history.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Periodically, in order to keep Radical Islamic Hostiles, Jihadist, terrorists and Insurgents placated, the general body issues non-binding, irrelevant, and non-sensical Resolutions to keep them happy.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Although there are more the 2 dozen citations referenced in 1982 A/RES/37/43 in the opening, there is no direct reference connecting  "self-determination" or "territorial integrity" other than the UN Charter [Chapter I Article 1(2) and 2(4)].  And the Charter, while directly applicable to Israel as a Member Nation, has no influence or power relative to Palestine because (in 1982) there was no member nation called Palestine.

The Charter is equally applicable to all nations conceptually.  What is good for Israel is good for every other member.  There is nothing unique to the Palestinians that would come to be recognized as an observer nation ---  six years in the future (1988).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Israel never denied the Palestinians the right to self-determination.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

WOW, !!!  Nothing under international law, relative to "territorial integrity" applied to Palestine.

•  Article 2(4) of the Charter applies to members.  In 1948, it was the Arab League that used force to prevent the establishment of the State of Israel [The Jewish State as recommended by the UN Membership Part II - Boundaries, Section "B", A/RES/181(II)].

•  The UN, the successor organization to the League of Nations, pursuant to Article 77(1a) - International Trusteeship System, held the Article 16 passage of all TITLE and RIGHTS to the Territory formerly under Mandate.  Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" _(which it did not)_, it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.  As you so often remind us, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is as universal as the objective for peace. AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."

•  Finally, these century old arguments have been overtaken be events.  No matter what agency might interpret the intent of the Allied Powers with regards to the future of the area formerly under the supervision of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration_ [OETA South - (Dec 1917 – Jun 1920)]_, they cannot be use to upset the general maintenance of peace --- as is the purpose of the UN.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand your history.
> 
> ...


AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."​
Where are  they wrong?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I don't think you understand your history.
> 
> ...


Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" _(which it did not)_, it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.​
The UN has no authority over land or borders. It cannot create or negate the existence of states. The UN can only recognize states and grant membership. These are both political acts. There is no legal criteria necessary for these actions.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

I think you are a bit lost here.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > AND, it was the stated intention of the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to ignore and reject the recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any authority derived from the Council or Allied Powers. The HoAP considered that imposing Jewish immigrants, on the territory to which the Mandate applied, to be a use of force and an act of aggression "whether made by Jews themselves, through Great Britain, or by the United Nations."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Crazy people are allowed to believe what they want.  If the HoAP do not wish to recognize that which is a matter of history just because they do not like what is says, does not change what is right with the history and with the development of a culture and nation.  

The HoAP just make it harder on themselves with a ever increasing detrimental effect on them.  If the HoAP do not want to develop, then so be it.  But they should not blame anyone but themselves.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the Provisional Israeli Government need "permission" _(which it did not)_, it would come from the UN Trusteeship System.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

In 1948, the territory came under the jurisdiction of the UN.

Remember, the Treaty of Lausanne gave the Allied Powers the TITLE and RIGHTS to the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.  The Allied Powers the created through the Council of the League of Nations, the Mandate System.  But the TITLE and RIGHTS were still in the hands of the Allied Powers as the Mandatory Nations were selected.  The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.  Now, it should be noted that just as the Mandate System _(relative the Palestine)_ ran its course, so it was with the Trusteeship System _(relative to Palestine)_.  The inhabitants have exercised their right to self-determination; in the case of the West Bank, several times.  So, now --- to talk intelligently --- Israel, and every other the remaining parties to the conflict, must use the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States when trying to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Now, again, the HoAP can claim that they have --- by some feat of magic --- sovereignty and independence over the area formerly supervised by the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration _(later the Mandate for Palestine)_.  But NOWHERE are the HoAP granted or recognized as having any control of territory; except for Gaza Area "A" and "B"...  In fact, the Armistice Lines do not even exist relative to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  While the Jewish State of Israel has identifiable and concrete borders which are policed by the State, the Palestinians do not.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, Shusha, et al,
> ...








 Did you forget about the Oslo Accords then that were treaties giving Israel the legal right to do so. Or the UN resolutions that state acquisitiopn of land by force is illegal so the Jews were entitled to claim back the land stolen from them in 1949 by the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians. What treaty did the arab muslims calling themselves palestiniand have to allow them to invade and take Jewish lands in 1949 ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 7, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> I think you are a bit lost here.
> 
> ...


The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.​
If the Mandate had title and rights.

And.

The Mandate was to create a Jewish Home.

Why didn't they just sign Palestine over to the Zionists?

Mission accomplished.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Where are  they wrong?



They are wrong exactly for the reason YOU keeping bringing up:  

*...all peoples under foreign and colonial domination....

...universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence ... *


The Jewish people too.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 In denying the Jews the same rights they themselves recieve of course. Like you they believe that they are the only group that should be allowed to have any rights to land, free determination and security. They are in breach of international laws that make them all collectively war criminals and as such should be arrested and tried for their crimes in the Hague.

 You are very quick to point out that Israel is in breach of international laws that dont exist, yet ignore the arab muslims breaches of international laws that do exist. WHY IS THIS ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 7, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


The native Jews in Palestine had the same rights as the native Christians and Muslims. There was no distinction. They were all the people of the place.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 WRONG as the UN took over the duty of care handed to the LoN by the treaty of Sevres, treaty of Lausanne and the mandates still in place. They tried to alter international laws to bring about peace in the M.E. and failed because the arab muslims saw the UN as weak. 

DO TRY AND READ UPON THIS SUBJECT AS YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOURSELF LOOK FOOLISH AND ILLITERATE WHEN YOU MAKE HALF BAKED CLAIMS YOU KNOW YOU CAN NEVER PROVE. uNLESS YOU ARE 100% CERTAIN THAT YOUR EVIDENCE WILL STAND UP AGAINST THE MATERIAL IN THE UN ARCHIVES DONT TRY TO PASS IT OF AS INTERNATIONAL LAW OR USE IT RETROSPECTIVELY.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> If the Mandate had title and rights.
> 
> And.
> 
> ...




They did.  

The HoAP just refused to accept it, just like you are doing.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 THEY DID IN 1923, AND THE JEWS DID NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS TO DEFEND AGAINST ATTACK UNTIL 1948 WHEN THEY DECLARED INDEPENDENCE OF THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE. THE ARAB MUSLIMS CALLING THEMSELVES PALESTINIANS HAD THE RIGHT TO DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM 1923 TO 1947 AND FAILED TO DO SO. ONCE THE JEWS SHOWED THEIR INTENT THE ARAB MUSLIMS INVADED IN A BID TO WIPE OUT THE JEWS AND TAKE THE LAND AS THEIRS. 

WHY DO THE ARAB MUSLIMS ALWAYS LOSE THE WARS THEY START AGAINST ISRAEL WHEN THEY OUTNUMBER THEM 1 MILLION TO 1 ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 AS WHERE THE JEWS INVITED TO MIGRATE TO PALESTINE AND SETTLE ON THE LAND. THEY HAD THE SAME RIGHTS AS THE ARAB MUSLIMS INVITED TO MIGRATE TO TRANS JORDAN AND SETTLE ON THE LAND. THE SAME MANDATE AND INTERNATIONAL TREATY APPLIES TO BOTH PARTS OF PALESTINE. AND YOU ARE JUST SHOWING HOW IDIOTIC YOU ARE BY ARGUING ON A SUBJECT YOU KNOW YOU CANT WIN.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 7, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You are just trying to manipulate the language.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The UN Trusteeship was the successor to the Mandate System which had inherited the TITLE and RIGHTS from the Allied Powers.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I did not say that "the Mandate had title and rights."  This is how you twist the language.  The Allied Powers had the TITLE and RIGHTS --- something for which the HoAP did not have; not then and not now. 

One (not all) of the objectives of the Mandate for Palestine was the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The reasoning behind what Great Britain and the other Allied Powers did (or did not do) was for the political leadership to understand.

Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch.  But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You are just trying to manipulate the language.
> 
> ...


Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.​
The Palestinians have done a pretty god job of defending themselves considering that they are an essentially an unarmed civilian population attacked by world superpowers.

The Palestinians did manage to get Britain to leave Palestine without creating their beloved Jewish National Home. Britain's only claim to fame is starting a never ending war that has so far created a hundred years of death an destruction. Stupid award for Britain. And Britain still supports that war.
Double stupid award for Britain.

And the Palestinians still reject surrendering home and rights to Zionist colonization. Cheers to the Palestinians.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Palestinians have nothing to be proud of as a developing national; and have even less to boast about in terms of capability.  None of the G-8 _(Super Powers)(US UK FRG PRC JAPAN RUSSIA INDIA SAUDI ARABIA)_ have directly engaged the Arab Palestinians.   Rest assured, had such a confrontation occurred, there would have been grave consequences.  The last intermix _(Nuclear Confrontation)_ of the Super Powers _(US 'vs' USSR)_ was during the 1967 Six-Day War instigated by the Soviet Union; when the both the Arabs and Israelis misread the intentions of the other, and the intentional aggravation of the situation spurred by Soviet fingers.

While the Super Powers may tangle either directly or by proxy, until the events by their radical Islamic and Jihadist brethren in 9/11, the Super Powers had kept their distance from the Middle East opposition.

Most of the G-8 Super Powers were avoiding the volatile cocktail of domestic Arab politics, poor intelligence on opposition capabilities and intentions, the internal political situation driving fueling the military conflict, and the radicalized militants that drew religious contentions forward.  In fact, the G-8 Super Powers failed to recognize the impact of religious extremism --- and implications that would prolong the confrontations for decades.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Not everything envisioned in 1916 through 1922 went off without a hitch. But certainly, based on how the HoAP evolved into what they are today, created a solid image of a modern day Jihadist, Terrorist, Insurgent and political partner for which one can describe as a positive influence on the morals and ethics of todays reality.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is a huge difference between radicalized Islamic Jihadist, Insurgents, and Terrorist attempting to antagonize legitimately formed governments and defending against an attack by a Super Power.  The Arab Palestinians are the parent to asymmetric, unconventional, and politically-motivated violence to create an environment suitable to coerce and intimidate populations and governments into taking some action.

This is not "a pretty god job of defending themselves," no matter how you look at it. 

Don't make the mistake of identifying those that kidnap and murder teenagers, directly assault school age children the inform and elderly, members of the public in prayer, purposely targeting innocent civilians  as patriotic and heroic defenders of a righteous population and culture.



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians did manage to get Britain to leave Palestine without creating their beloved Jewish National Home. Britain's only claim to fame is starting a never ending war that has so far created a hundred years of death an destruction. Stupid award for Britain. And Britain still supports that war.
> 
> Double stupid award for Britain.


*(COMMENT)*

Yeah ... yeah ...  No matter when the Mandatory Power left the territory, that would trigger a move to self-determination that would create a Jewish National Home.



P F Tinmore said:


> And the Palestinians still reject surrendering home and rights to Zionist colonization. Cheers to the Palestinians.


*(COMMENT)*

I like to look a specific incidents when commenting.  BUT, in general, the Palestinians can say that the containment and security countermeasures they have to endure are a direct result of their hostile intentions and their procrastination in the negotiation of a workable treaty. 

In regards to the West Bank, Israel has a Peace Treaty with the Arab League Nation that had sovereignty over the West Bank; before Israeli Occupation.

In regards to the West Bank, Israel has a Peace Treaty with the Arab League Nation that had governorship over the Gaza Strip; before Israeli Occupation.​The longer it takes for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fade away and a new generation of Palestinians (that want peace) to takeover and negotiate peace, the worse the situation will become.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 And what international traety states that the arab muslims were to recieve ALL of palestine for their national home. How about a link that say palestine and ALL palestine 

The arab muslims calling themselves palestinians used terrorism, violence and simple bankruptsy after WW2 to force Britain out of palestine. If WW2 had not started then the arab muslims would have been evicted as illegal immigrants.

 Dont forget the same International law that allowed the arab nations to expell the Jews also allows the Jews to expell the arab muslims, and the UN will have a fit when they enforce it


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Palestinians have nothing to be proud of as a developing national; and have even less to boast about in terms of capability.  None of the G-8 _(Super Powers)(US UK FRG PRC JAPAN RUSSIA INDIA SAUDI ARABIA)_ have directly engaged the Arab Palestinians.   Rest assured, had such a confrontation occurred, there would have been grave consequences.  The last intermix _(Nuclear Confrontation)_ of the Super Powers _(US 'vs' USSR)_ was during the 1967 Six-Day War instigated by the Soviet Union; when the both the Arabs and Israelis misread the intentions of the other, and the intentional aggravation of the situation spurred by Soviet fingers.
> 
> ...


The longer it takes for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fade away and a new generation of Palestinians (that want peace) to takeover and negotiate peace, the worse the situation will become.​
I have to agree on that. The Palestinians have wanted Abbas to retire for years but the US and Israel keep him in power. This transformation is happening as we speak. The Palestinians have been breaking away from their foreign appointed leadership. The people working for peace in the West Bank are pounded down by Israel and the illegal PA. The Palestinians in Palestine have few opportunities to work for peace.

However, the Palestinians in the diaspora have been stepping up to the plate and are creating an international peace movement. Israel is up a tree. It cannot bomb BDS and that is the limit of their intellectual capacity.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 8, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

While there may be a short period in which The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement will have an impact, in the end ---- the economic factors affecting the price, demand, and availability of a commodity will win out over rivals as do the market forces of any commodity.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The longer it takes for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to fade away and a new generation of Palestinians (that want peace) to takeover and negotiate peace, the worse the situation will become.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

It does not matter who is actually in the catbird seat of the Palestinians.  They have already irreparably harmed the next several generations of Arab Palestinians. You could install Khaled Meshaal _[Chief Political Bureau, Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)]_ as the sole representative and it would not favor the Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Radicalized Palestinian Jihadist _(it may alter the direction but the outcome will be just as bad --- as long as they refuse to negotiate in good faith)_.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians and the Radicalized Palestinian Jihadist, under their current political policies, do not appear ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish State; holding the position that under Israeli occupation, Israel and a State of Palestine _(Two State Solution)_ cannot coexist.  And even if President Mahmoud Abbas is replaced tomorrow, the current, the following and the subsequent generation of Palestinians will not be able to politically pivot in the direction of Friendly Relations and Co-operation necessary to engage in good faith negotiations.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 8, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> While there may be a short period in which The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement will have an impact, in the end ---- the economic factors affecting the price, demand, and availability of a commodity will win out over rivals as do the market forces of any commodity.
> 
> ...


Nobody but BDS is working for peace. They have no competition.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> ....the Palestinians in the diaspora ...



Palestinians in the diaspora?  There are no Palestinians in the diaspora.  They are Syrians and Americans and Europeans.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > ....the Palestinians in the diaspora ...
> ...








 He is stealing another aspect of judaism because the arab muslims dont have the same concept. Instaed of being truthfull and saying all those that ran like cowards he claims they are part of the Jewish Diaspora


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you better visit the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Official Website.

*What is BDS?*
The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.

*OVERVIEW*
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality. BDS upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity.

Israel is occupying and colonising Palestinian land, discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel and denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes. Inspired by the South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS call urges action to pressure Israel to comply with international law.

BDS is now a vibrant global movement made up of unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements across the world. Eleven years since its launch, BDS is having a major impact and is effectively challenging international support for Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.​It should be noted that the word "peace" is not used even once on the webpage for the BDS Overview, maintained by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC); or the Palestinian BDS National Committee webpage itself.



P F Tinmore said:


> Nobody but BDS is working for peace. They have no competition.


*(OBSERVATION)*

The very first organization on the list of current members" of the BNC is:

*Palestinian National and Islamic Forces (PNIF)*
(Formed 2000)

SUMMARY:
The Palestinian National and Islamic Forces is a coalition formed shortly after the outbreak of the second Intifada for the purpose of coordinating the agenda of its members and planning and executing joint attacks against Israel.  (Designated Terrorist Groups in *RED*.)

• * Islamic Resistance Movement/Hamas, *
•  Fatah, 
•  Palestine People’s Party, (Formerly the Palestinian Communist Party 1982-1991)
•  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine,* 
•  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,*
•  Palestine Liberation Front,
•  Democratic Union of Palestine/FIDA
•  Palestinian Popular Struggle Front​
*(COMMENT)*

Most of the Hostile Arab Palestinian associations have a cosmetic face to be associated with non-violent activities.  The BDS Movement is a Second Tier Cosmetic cover for some lightly covered terrorist organizations: 

The FIRST TEIR being the PNIF  
The SECOND TEIR being the BNC.  ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I think you better visit the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Official Website.
> *What is BDS?*
> ...


You know that I don't buy into that third grade terrorist name calling crap.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


Ignoring an obvious reality won't magically make that reality disappear. There's no confusion, except yours, as to the goals of your Islamic terrorist heroes. Peace is not one of those goals. The Hamas charter doesn't spend time extolling the virtues of peace with the Jewish state. 

Taking a third graders approach to dealing with the reality of Islamic terrorism is not just naive but incredibly dangerous.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

No group actually wants to be identified with organizations that have a history of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent and noncombatant civilians; the purpose of which is intended to influence an audience.  But it is pretty damn difficult not to connect the various 



P F Tinmore said:


> You know that I don't buy into that third grade terrorist name calling crap.


*(COMMENT)*

If you go to the Global Terrorism Database, you will find more than two dozen terrorist organizations associated with the radicalized Jihadist of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS).  

When we think of the Arab Palestinian, in third-grad terms, we think of:

Hamas official Halil Al-Hayya, Al-Hayat newspaper, November 11, 2010
"The lie of the Zionist Holocaust crumbles with countless holocausts committed by the Zionists in Beit Hanoun, al-Fakhoura school and other places in Palestine." ... "Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it, with the exception of those who lived on the land of Palestine before World War I."

Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Mashaal, Damascus, Syria, December 27, 2008
"This is the time for the third uprising... Resistance will continue through suicide missions."

Sami Abu Zuhri, Hamas spokesman, April 17, 2006
"The Tel Aviv suicide bombing is an an act of self defense... [it is] a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people."

Hamas communiqué, September 8, 1988, translated and distributed in the U.S. by the Islamic Association for Palestine
"Let everyone know that Hamas... is only against Jews and those twisted in their manner... it realizes the Jews' methods in trying to cause hostility and friction between people..."
"We should lend punches to the Jews wherever possible [to commemorate Muhammad's defeat of one of the Jewish tribes of Arabia]."​
Whether you want to call them terrorists or organizations the kidnap and murder, involved in bombings, using a car and knives to wreak havoc, the intention to coerce and influence the audience is exactly the same.


• *Islamic Resistance Movement/Hamas,*

12/14/2015: An assailant rammed his vehicle into civilians at a bus stop along Herzl boulevard, Jerusalem city, Jerusalem district, Israel. At least 14 people were injured in the attack. Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) claimed responsibility for the incident and identified the assailant as Abed el-Muhsen Hassuna.​•  *Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,*

08/24/2011: On Wednesday, in Ofakim, Southern District, Israel, suspected members of the Armed Wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades fired a rocket from the Gaza Strip. The attack caused no casualties and caused an unknown amount of property damage. No group claimed responsibility.​•  *Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine,*

06/06/2003: A group affiliated with the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, claimed responsibility for firing four mortars at the Jewish settlement of Gush Khatif in the Gaza Strip. No casualties resulted from the bombardment.​

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No group actually wants to be identified with organizations that have a history of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent and noncombatant civilians; the purpose of which is intended to influence an audience.  But it is pretty damn difficult not to connect the various
> 
> ...


No group actually wants to be identified with organizations that have a history of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent and noncombatant civilians; the purpose of which is intended to influence an audience. But it is pretty damn difficult not to connect the various​
Does Israel bomb the crap out of civilians to show the world that its colonialism is self determination?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 9, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> No group actually wants to be identified with organizations that have a history of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent and noncombatant civilians; the purpose of which is intended to influence an audience.  But it is pretty damn difficult not to connect the various
> 
> ...


Who was Israel's boogyman before there was Hamas?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...








 Because it destroys your whole stance if you did, but I find it strange that the palestinians themselves admit they are terrorists and yet you cant ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...






It doesn't though does it, it does bomb the crap out of terror weapons that are illegal under international law. If hamas want to use its children as human shields to protect these weapons then they will have to accept the children have become militia and liable to being killed.  And until you accept that INTERNATIONAL LAW is on the side of Israel in this matter you will never understand why you are ridiculed and taked down to. The wording of the laws are very plain, fire illegal weapons and you will see a responce that will result in many deaths. Place non combatants in the area the weapons are fired from and you committ a war crime and breach INTERNATIONAL LAWS, so have no complaint when these non combatants get killed. Engage in acts of war contrary to the UN charter and UN resolutions that you have accepted and signed to be bound by and you no longer get the protection of the UN charter or the resolutions.

 ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT HAMAS AND THE ARAB MUSLIMS CALLING THEMSELVES PALESTINIANS HAVE ELECTED TO FREELY DETERMINE THEIR ATTACKS ON ISRAEL AND SO MUST PAY THE PRICE FOR THEM. IF THEY WANT THE JEWS TO STOP KILLING THEM THEN THEY SHOULD STOP THE ILLEGAL ATTACKS AND TRY TALKING.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 The fore runner of hamas under any of its myriad names. Dont forget that islam has always been anti Jew since the tribe in medina refused to bow down and worship mo'mad as god.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


I think that with a bit of introspection and examination of the facts will lead to a conclusion that strikes by Israeli defense forces are the result of acts of war committed by various franchises of Islamic Terrorism Intl. Inc., that occupy the disputed territories.

Otherwise, can you make a case for the Israeli military intentionally antagonizing any of those islamic terrorist franchises for some specific reason?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 9, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Sure, they reject Israel's colonialism.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


As colonists themselves, the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters you call Pal'istanians have consistently rejected every opportunity to build a functioning society, something the Israelis chose to do.

Cheer up. The forever welfare fraud that perpetuates the invented Pal'istanians and continues to fund various UN sponsored islamic terrorist organizations will continue.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








What colonialism is that as International law says the land is for the Jewish national home, not for the islamonazi national home. OR ARE YOU DENYING THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWS AGAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE TWO FACED.

 STILL WAITING FOR THE LINK SAYING THAT THE LAND WAS GRANTED TO THE ARAB MUSLIMS TO HAVE SOVEREIGNTY OVER, MUST BE DATED AFTER 1923 AND BE AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY OR LAW.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your implication is 100% wrong.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > No group actually wants to be identified with organizations that have a history of premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocent and noncombatant civilians; the purpose of which is intended to influence an audience. But it is pretty damn difficult not to connect the various...
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There is a world of difference in your comparative suggestion...

The Israelis do not intentionally target non-combatants, civilian targets, and other protected people and objects.  Whereas, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) intentionally incite a confrontation in perspectives:

•  Rule 23. The HoAP intentionally locate military objectives, launch sites, weapons storage and other high value targets within or near densely populated areas and sensitive facilities under special protections.

•  Rule 24. The HoAP seldom, if ever, evacuate innocent civilian persons and other protected entities from the vicinity of military objectives, launch sites, weapons storage facilities, and other high value targets within or near densely populated areas and sensitive facilities under special protections.​
The HoAP seldom, if ever, move to an alternate choice in objective ---- expecting to cause the least danger to civilian lives and protected attributes --- yet achieve the same military advantage.  Additionally, the HoAP does not issue effective advance warning of attacks which may affect the civilian populated areas and sensitive facilities under special protections.

The HoAP have two principle reasons for this behavior:

•  In the first case, the HoAP “utilizing the presence of a Palestinian civilians and other protected entities to render certain points, areas of HoAP concern immune from immediate counter fire from the Israeli Defense Force (IDF); or to create a period of hesitation such that an effective escape from counter fires can be achieved.”

•  The HoAP attempts to create a media event by presenting lucrative military objectives, launch sites, weapons storage facilities, and other high value targets within or near densely populated areas and sensitive facilities under special protections; such that the military advantage of a IDF strike will create an outcome wherein the least danger to civilian lives and protected attributes still creates and outcome that is media ready exploitable and draws the greatest sympathy from the international community.​
To answer your question, the question itself, flawed in its construction, must be separated into the two areas it presents under evaluation:

•  Does Israel bomb the crap out of civilians?

*ANSWER:*  In this case, the answer may be yes?  The IDF may (under Rule #21)  address an otherwise legitimate HOAP military objective in such a manner that it is expected to cause the least danger to Palestinian lives and to Palestinian objects of concern.​•  Does the IDF militarily address and engage legitimate HOAP military threats  "to show the world that its colonialism is self determination?"

*ANSWER:*  No (EMPHATICALLY "NO")  In the general sense, the IDF identify the threat and attack the locality, facility, or enemy that constitutes a legitimate military target.  These targets are given to be making an effective contribution to HoAP Activities.​
I cannot speak for the IDF, but I have seen no evidence of a military culture that, as a matter of official policy,  would intentionally engage in a direct attack upon the non-threatening Palestinian civilian population, or upon any places, localities, or objects used solely for humanitarian, cultural, or religious purposes such as hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, or museums.  These places, as it appears to be, are are protected against direct targeting and would be considered immune from IDF attacks.

In the last half century (since the 1967 Six-Day War) the behavior of intentionally targeting civilians on buses and in cars, attacking tourist locations, Rabbis in prayer, restaurants and public beaches, hi-jacking commercial airliners and pirating a cruise liner are events associated with Palestinian Terrorist to achieve political aims that could not otherwise be achieved.

However, such protection and immunity from IDF targeting and attack is lost if these facilities are identified and used or employed for HoAP purposes or pose a threat.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Aug 9, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Nobody but BDS is working for peace. They have no competition.



What sort of "peace" is BDS working for, Tinmore?  If BDS achieved all of its goals -- what would Israel/Palestine look like?  What is the end game?


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

*Israeli air strike destroys home for the disabled killing two women residents*
*The residents at Mobarat Felestin Centre had just finished suhoor, the early morning meal before a long day of fasting during Ramadan, when the first missile hit the roof. It may have been the standard warning issued by the Israeli military that a major attack was coming.

But the people inside did not know that. And, with all but one of them suffering from mental and physical disability, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to escape in any event. The ensuing air strike, five minutes later at around 4.30, demolished a large part of the structure, starting a fire, leaving two dead and four others horrifically injured from shrapnel and burns.

Israel-Gaza conflict: Israeli air strike destroys home for the


Israel's Gaza house bombing policy illegal, human rights group says

Israel's leaders broke international law by backing a policy of bombing houses in last summer's Gaza conflict, resulting in mass civilian casualties, an Israeli human rights group has said.

In a report published on Wednesday, B'tselem says key Israeli political and military figures persisted with the approach even after it became obvious that it would unavoidably kill many people not involved in the hostilities.

Around 2,200 Palestinians - the majority of them non-combatants, according to the United Nations - were killed during the 50-day conflict, which also left 73 dead on the Israeli side. Around 18,000 Palestinian homes were destroyed or badly damaged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...g-policy-illegal-human-rights-group-says.html



*


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

From the link:

The Israeli government, however, has issued satellite photographs which, it stated, showed that the mosque, near the Nusseirat refugee camp, was being used to store rockets. It charged that Hamas and Islamic Jihad, another militant Palestinian group, “systematically use mosques to conceal weaponry and establish underground tunnel networks, abusing the holy nature of these sites for their own terror-oriented agenda.”



Islamic terrorism carries consequences.


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

*Israel Speaks: “We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”*
*In a video recording dated in 2012, Netanyahu can be seen speaking to what presumably are family members, women and children, completely unawares to the fact that his remarks are being recorded the entire time.

Netanyahu explains that, “The main thing, first of all, is to hit them [the Arabs].  Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne,” a policy doctrine we are now seeing play out in Israel’s current assault on Gaza in which the ‘price’ that is intended to be ‘too heavy to be borne,’ is measured in the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilian lives- their homes, their playgrounds, their beaches, their schools, their mosques, their hospitals; Israel has shown in Protective Edge that no one and no place in Gaza, not even children’s playgrounds and hospitals in which no militants whatsoever are present, is immune from the all-powerful roar of the highly-tuned, well-oiled and technologically sophisticated multi-billion dollar US-made killing machine that it has now descended upon the mostly defenseless, economically strangled, and poverty-induced population of Gaza

Don’t Make Me Shoot You

Nafeez Ahmed reports that,

“White highlights a Ha’aretz report from 2009 which revealed that “IDF officers were receiving legal advice that allowed for large numbers of civilian casualties and the targeting of government buildings.”

“The people who go into a house despite a warning do not have to be taken into account in terms of injury to civilians, because they are voluntary human shields,”

said one senior official of the international law division (ILD) of the Israeli Military Advocate General’s Office.

“From the legal point of view, I do not have to show consideration for them. In the case of people who return to their home in order to protect it, they are taking part in the fighting.” (emphasis added)

This statement presupposes that Israel has the right to order people out of their homes, without having to give a justification, without having to prove that it is a military outpost, just an arbitrary pronouncement by the military and either the civilians must flee or be murdered in cold blood by the IDF, in which case they will be referred to as ‘human shields’ and their extrajudicial slaughter justified in the eyes of the military machine and its legal aides; even if the civilian does flee, Israel presupposes the right to destroy their homes, property, and belongings- in other words, their property (and as well their lives) belong to us, because we say so.

According to U.S. Army Manuals terrorism is defined as, the

“calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies … [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals.” [U.S. Army Field Manual No. FM 3-0, Chapter 9, 37 (14 June 2001).]

Israel’s actions are therefore the exact definition of terrorism according to the U.S. army, where even justthe threat of violence to obtain political goals is terrorism; Israel is saying to the civilian population “leave your homes, or else,” while then presupposing that if their orders are not heeded they are thus absolved from the responsibility of the murder which they will then go about committing.  Even if they were just to threaten the use of violence to get people out of their homes it would be an extreme terroristic crime, let alone when they actually go through with the bombing, indiscriminate of who is inside.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel...ack-civilians-because-they-deserve-it/5394525

*


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

Hollie said:


> From the link:
> 
> The Israeli government, however, has issued satellite photographs which, it stated, showed that the mosque, near the Nusseirat refugee camp, was being used to store rockets. It charged that Hamas and Islamic Jihad, another militant Palestinian group, “systematically use mosques to conceal weaponry and establish underground tunnel networks, abusing the holy nature of these sites for their own terror-oriented agenda.”
> 
> ...


The Mosque was no where near the Mobarat Felestin Centre


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

Israeli terrorism carries consequences. Israel can expect the same treatment of it's Hospital's, school's and Government office's, after all, Most israeli's have served as militant's in the IDF at some point, that makes them legitimate target's


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

*Israel targeting mosques hurts Gaza social fabric*
*NUSEIRAT REFUGEE CAMP, Gaza Strip (AP) — Only the minaret still stands after an Israeli airstrike reduced Gaza's Al-Qassam Mosque to a heap of concrete, iron rods and dust. Hours after the pre-dawn attack, rescue workers searched in the rubble, residents gathered — and plainclothes Hamas security agents mingled among them.

Also known as the Grand Mosque, it was one of 63 that Israel has destroyed in its monthlong war with Hamas, according to Palestinian officials. The reason, Israel says, is that Hamas is using mosques to stockpile weapons and rocket launchers, and to hide tunnels used to infiltrate into Israel and carry out attacks.

Gaza's Hamas rulers deny the accusation, saying Israel is waging a war against Islam. On the ground, many Gazans react the same, saying Israel is attacking their faith.

During recent visits by The Associated Press to a half-dozen Gaza mosques destroyed by Israeli strikes, residents categorically denied they were used by Hamas as hideouts for its fighters or as storage places for its hardware.

"None, absolutely none," or "I never saw members of the resistance anywhere here" were the most common responses to queries about whether the militants used them for military purposes.

And, indeed, most of the targeted mosques did double as social, education and health centers for residents, offering them medical care, classes to memorize the Quran and eradicate illiteracy, as well as sports events like soccer and table tennis tournaments.




Read more: Israel targeting mosques hurts Gaza social fabric 
*


----------



## Shusha (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger 

Are you trying to make the point that Israel deliberately targeted a home for the disabled in order to kill disabled civilians?  In other words, that Israel was aware that building housed disabled people and deliberately chose it as a target?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> *Israeli air strike destroys home for the disabled killing two women residents*
> *The residents at Mobarat Felestin Centre had just finished suhoor, the early morning meal before a long day of fasting during Ramadan, when the first missile hit the roof. It may have been the standard warning issued by the Israeli military that a major attack was coming.
> 
> But the people inside did not know that. And, with all but one of them suffering from mental and physical disability, it is highly unlikely they would have been able to escape in any event. The ensuing air strike, five minutes later at around 4.30, demolished a large part of the structure, starting a fire, leaving two dead and four others horrifically injured from shrapnel and burns.
> ...








 And what does this have to do with the topic of the thread, why are you using staged pictures and not the truth.


----------



## fanger (Aug 9, 2016)

I suggest they didn't care, they wanted to make a point, No one is safe against Israeli aggression, how would they not know that complex housed disabled people, they control all of Gaza, and know where everyone lives


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> *Israel Speaks: “We Purposefully Attack Civilians… Because They Deserve It”*
> *In a video recording dated in 2012, Netanyahu can be seen speaking to what presumably are family members, women and children, completely unawares to the fact that his remarks are being recorded the entire time.*
> 
> *Netanyahu explains that, “The main thing, first of all, is to hit them [the Arabs].  Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne,” a policy doctrine we are now seeing play out in Israel’s current assault on Gaza in which the ‘price’ that is intended to be ‘too heavy to be borne,’ is measured in the indiscriminate murder of innocent civilian lives- their homes, their playgrounds, their beaches, their schools, their mosques, their hospitals; Israel has shown in Protective Edge that no one and no place in Gaza, not even children’s playgrounds and hospitals in which no militants whatsoever are present, is immune from the all-powerful roar of the highly-tuned, well-oiled and technologically sophisticated multi-billion dollar US-made killing machine that it has now descended upon the mostly defenseless, economically strangled, and poverty-induced population of Gaza*
> ...







 OFF TOPIC DEFLECTION AGAIN CAN THE MODS REMOVE THIS POST PLEASE


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > From the link:
> ...








Try again as the photo on google maps shows a mosque close to the centre


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> Israeli terrorism carries consequences. Israel can expect the same treatment of it's Hospital's, school's and Government office's, after all, Most israeli's have served as militant's in the IDF at some point, that makes them legitimate target's








 Responding to attack, violence and terrorism is not terrorism, no matter how many times you tell this LIE. 

 IT IS THE ARAB MUSLIMS THAT ARE THE TERRORISTS WHEN THEY TARGET CHILDREN, UNARMED WOMEN AND THE INFIRM. THIS HAS BEEN NOTED BY ALL NGO'S AND COMMENTED ON, THIS IS WHY THEY ARE NO LONGER FLAVOUR OF THE MONTH AND THE WORLD IS TURNING AGAINST THEM.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> Israeli terrorism carries consequences. Israel can expect the same treatment of it's Hospital's, school's and Government office's, after all, Most israeli's have served as militant's in the IDF at some point, that makes them legitimate target's








 And the arab muslims lose even more in the eyes of the world until eventually the UN is forced to impose sanctions on the palestinians.

 You can threaten all you want but remember it is not illegal to respond to attacks and so Israel will be allowed to respond to these by bombing gaza into dust if it breaches international law or the Geneva conventions when it targets Hospitals and Schools that are not used as military instalations


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> Israeli terrorism carries consequences. Israel can expect the same treatment of it's Hospital's, school's and Government office's, after all, Most israeli's have served as militant's in the IDF at some point, that makes them legitimate target's


Lots of bluster from a goofy cut & paster. 

Your copying and pasting has once again allowed you to refute your own argument..... made with nothing more than mindless copying and pasting. 

Atta' boy.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> I suggest they didn't care, they wanted to make a point, No one is safe against Israeli aggression, how would they not know that complex housed disabled people, they control all of Gaza, and know where everyone lives



It is the duty of any responsible government to protect its citizens from islamic terrorism and islamic terrorist acts of war.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.


----------



## MJB12741 (Aug 9, 2016)

Hollie said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest they didn't care, they wanted to make a point, No one is safe against Israeli aggression, how would they not know that complex housed disabled people, they control all of Gaza, and know where everyone lives
> ...



All true.  However, thanks to the Islamic terrorists, sales of Israel's security systems are booming all over  the  world, including now in Rio at the Olympics. Great stock investment opportunities for us Americans.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 9, 2016)

fanger said:


> I suggest they didn't care, they wanted to make a point, No one is safe against Israeli aggression, how would they not know that complex housed disabled people, they control all of Gaza, and know where everyone lives




So, yes, then.  You believe that Israel knew that this was a home for disabled people and that Israel deliberately targeted it to kill disabled people.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest they didn't care, they wanted to make a point, No one is safe against Israeli aggression, how would they not know that complex housed disabled people, they control all of Gaza, and know where everyone lives
> ...


You can't just indiscriminately bomb. That is illegal. You have to know what you are bombing and have good reason to.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...



Israel knows that.  That's why Israel doesn't do it.  

The claim fanger made was not that Israel bombed indiscriminately but that Israel was deliberately targeting disabled people.  Do you agree with him?


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

They knew exactly what they were aiming at, they even stated they thought sniper fire came from that area


----------



## Shusha (Aug 10, 2016)

fanger said:


> They knew exactly what they were aiming at, they even stated they thought sniper fire came from that area



So they were aiming at a valid military objective.  I think we are done here.


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

*Israel responsible for Gaza strikes on UN schools and shelters, inquiry finds*
israel was responsible for striking seven United Nations sites used as civilian shelters during the 2014 Gaza war in which 44 Palestinians died and 227 others were injured, an inquiry ordered by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has concluded.

Releasing the report on Monday, Ban condemned the attacks “as a matter of the utmost gravity” and said “those who looked to them for protection and who sought and were granted shelter there had their hopes and trust denied”.

Ban insisted that UN locations were “inviolable”.

The issue is particularly sensitive as the locations of all UN buildings – including schools used as shelters – are routinely provided to the Israeli military and updated in times of conflict.
Israel responsible for Gaza strikes on UN schools and shelters, inquiry finds


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

A disabled people's home is a valid target for israeli thugs and their apologists


----------



## Shusha (Aug 10, 2016)

Blah, blah, blah.  I've read about some of those "attacks" on schools.  A bunch of poor innocent refugees lined up for tea and cookies and they get shelled by the evil Israeli (read:  Jews).  And then you find out that every single person who died in that particular shelling is a male between the ages of 15 and 40.  Hmmmmm.  

Couldn't possibly have been a valid military objective.  

Its the same BS posted everywhere.  Evil Israelis (read: Jews) just like killing people so they can take over the world.  Blah.  Blah.  Standard anti-semitic crap.  And the Palestinians are just poor innocents lined up for tea and cookies.


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

There was no military benefit from bombing  the disabled peoples home


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 10, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Blah, blah, blah.  I've read about some of those "attacks" on schools.  A bunch of poor innocent refugees lined up for tea and cookies and they get shelled by the evil Israeli (read:  Jews).  And then you find out that every single person who died in that particular shelling is a male between the ages of 15 and 40.  Hmmmmm.
> 
> Couldn't possibly have been a valid military objective.
> 
> Its the same BS posted everywhere.  Evil Israelis (read: Jews) just like killing people so they can take over the world.  Blah.  Blah.  Standard anti-semitic crap.  And the Palestinians are just poor innocents lined up for tea and cookies.


every single person who died in that particular shelling is a male between the ages of 15 and 40.​
What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Blah, blah, blah.  I've read about some of those "attacks" on schools.  A bunch of poor innocent refugees lined up for tea and cookies and they get shelled by the evil Israeli (read:  Jews).  And then you find out that every single person who died in that particular shelling is a male between the ages of 15 and 40.  Hmmmmm.
> ...



It was NOT a line up for tea and cookies.  Pallywood.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh, I have to chuckle at this.



P F Tinmore said:


> You can't just indiscriminately bomb. That is illegal. You have to know what you are bombing and have good reason to.


*(COMMENT)*

It is standard practice for the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) (Palestinians) to fire thousand of rockets into Israel as a matter of indiscriminate fire.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

Rockets are indiscriminate by nature, when someone gives them controllable munitions, their fire will become more accurate,


----------



## Hollie (Aug 10, 2016)

fanger said:


> A disabled people's home is a valid target for israeli thugs and their apologists


It's a valid targets when used by islamic terrorists to commit acts of war.

How fortunate for you that your islamic terrorist heroes have no objection to putting lives of noncombatants in the line of fire. 

Dead lslamo's are worth the propaganda, right?


----------



## fanger (Aug 10, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Dead lslamo's are worth the propaganda, right?


What, all six million? 1.5 million, a jewish finger nail?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 10, 2016)

fanger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Dead lslamo's are worth the propaganda, right?
> ...


Did you steal that from Juan Cole's site?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 10, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Oh, I have to chuckle at this.
> 
> ...


fire thousand of rockets into Israel​
Interesting statement considering Israel has no border there.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 10, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


.....other than the border they defend from Islamic terrorists.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Oooooooooo, terrorist! 

Is that all you got?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



How else would one describe various franchises of _Islamic Terrorism Intl. Inc.?_


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger, et al,

The two primary field action proponents for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and light weapons (SALW) and interception are Israel.  The biggest obstacle _(other than Israel)_ facing the transit of weapons were actions taken by Egypt and Jordan which control the borders with Palestine. Border enforcement operations hamper arming of Jihadist and Fedayeen in the West Bank -- in the interception or interdiction SALW traffic; border enforcement is usually on the hands of Israel.

Interception and interdictions operations have progressively become more effective, particularly since the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from Gaza.  

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF), the Syrian Insurgency Force or the Army, Hezbollah, and Islamic Resistiance Movement (HAMAS) had been established and opened formal lines of communications to coordinate the supply of SALW and pass other monetary and material support.  Other  Palestinian resistance factions, such as Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and some members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs and the Salah Din brigades, including the PFLP-General Command in capitalizing on the transit of illicit SALW.

Since 2005, the Hostile Arab Palestinians successfully maintained the flow of numerous types SALW; as well as improved the transit medium weapons, mortars, medium and long-range missiles, as well as several types of ammunition and materials that can be used to manufacture rockets and bombs.

In the last decade, more than 10,000 medium rockets and mortars have been fired from Gaza alone.  


fanger said:


> Rockets are indiscriminate by nature, when someone gives them controllable munitions, their fire will become more accurate,


*(COMMENT)*

It is not likely that guided munitions would be provided to the HoAP by other than through illicit traffic channels.

Most of the active players in the Regional area (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt) are undertaking security, interdiction and interception efforts to halt the smuggling of SALW through the tunnels effort and to prevent HAMAS from preparing for the next round of HoAP provoked fighting.  None of the active Regional players have any reason to assist the various HoAP with such, only to risk them turning these same weapons upon them or inciting more unrest in what is already a volatile regime.

It is common knowledge that supplying the various HoAP with such SALW is merely encouraging more violations of Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which specifically and explicitly hold that attacks solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, stated violations.

And, without regard to what various pro-Palestinian activist may argue, the use of SALW, numerous types of medium weapons, mortars, medium and long-range missiles, as well as several types of ammunition and materials that can be used to manufacture rockets and bombs against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, are also a violation of Customary and IHL.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you argue that non-sense all the time.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > fire thousand of rockets into Israel
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Every nation that transit into and out of Israel recognizes the need for travel documents when crossing a border control point.  While tourist visa is not required for US citizens fin cases of stays not greater than 90 days.  All diplomats must present their credentials to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or attain their Diplomatic Visa from the Israeli Consulate when traveling to Israel.

When this is done, this is recognition of "Statehood."  Essentially, when Palestinians present their travel documents at the border checkpoint, that is a physical manifestation of a border within the realm of reality.

However, if as you claim, that Gaza and the West Bank are all one with Israel, then their is no occupation.  Although you might make a case for either a "Protectorate Territory" or "Dependent Territory."  In which case, international law does not apply to domestic issues.

But, I choose to think YOUR CHALLENGE is merely a pro-Palestinian Ploy.  Every Palestinian (West Bank or Gaza) and every Regional State, knows without question where the border for Israeli Sovereignty and Independence is currently locate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

We can assign any noun-nomenclature that you prefer; other than on that already is taken 



P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


(COMMENT)

We can define the Arab Palestinian character and stature:

Stsirorret:  A culture that is a dangerously disruptive influence to regional stability and security, associated with a very poor territory of human development, a non-self supporting people - dependent on international donations, know for their expertise in kidnapping and murder, Olympic Team Massacre, numerous airline hijackings, the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians and a people that instigate and incite violence for political gain that they are incapable of achieving though peaceful means.​
You can deny the legacy earned of being a barbaric and savagely cruel --- But that changes nothing.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> Yes, you argue that non-sense all the time.
> 
> ...


However, if as you claim, that Gaza and the West Bank are all one with Israel, then their is no occupation.  Although you might make a case for either a "Protectorate Territory" or "Dependent Territory."  In which case, international law does not apply to domestic issues.​
So, the Palestinians cannot be in violation of any international law. International terrorism is out too. That is good to know.

No occupation? I don't see where that is true.

Najd was a Palestinian farm village whose existence predated the Ottoman Empire. Najd was attacked and occupied by Zionist/Israeli troops before the 1948 war. The People were expelled into Gaza. The Israeli settlement of Sderot was built on Najd land.

I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired that land.

BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> We can assign any noun-nomenclature that you prefer; other than on that already is taken
> 
> ...


You have to go back 40 years?

Must not be an ongoing problem.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > fanger said:
> ...








 So you finally admit that the arab muslims illegal weapons are illegal in all ways, and that they should cease and desist. 

 The IDF target the launch sites of illegal weapons, the known meeting places of the terrorist groups and the hamas "safe" houses. All these are legal valid targets, and if hamas happens to use a medical centre, school, mosque or hospital from which to fire illegal weapons then they are seen as valid military targets.


 WANT TO TRY AGAIN AS YOU HAVE JUST PUT YOUR FOOT IN IT AND SHOWN ONCE AGAIN THAT YOU DONT WANT INTERNATIONAL LAW TO WORK FOR THE JEWS


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> They knew exactly what they were aiming at, they even stated they thought sniper fire came from that area








 making it a valid military target. Now if you decide to fire on an Israeli hospital you would be guilty of a war crime and should be made to pay the price.   Dont you read the Geneva conventions and the UN charter to see what constitutes a valid target, and dont you realize that murdering innocents could see repercussions against islam the world over. What will the refugee's do then when they are turned back and told that muslims are not welcome in the west anymore.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







WRONG as they are illegals living on Israeli land and so any action they take is illegal and terrorism. International law applies to individuals as well as nations so they are still in existence, and the arab muslims are in breach of them constantly.

Then it cant be muslim can it, and must be Jewish.  You forget that arab muslim troops invaded Israel before the 1948 war as well. This means that coupled with International laws  the Jews owned the village and the arab's were illegal immigrants.

Then you are once again ignoring INTERNATIONAL LAWS and INTERNATIONAL TREATIES


Unless it is being done by arab muslims, then it is perfectly legal as INTERNATIONAL LAW of 1923 says it is. But hold on the same law gives the Jews the same rights so it must be legal for them as well.



 Now were is the international treaty or international law that gives the land to the arab muslims ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 Didnt you just go back 1000 years in a wasted attempt at deflection


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> *Israel responsible for Gaza strikes on UN schools and shelters, inquiry finds*
> israel was responsible for striking seven United Nations sites used as civilian shelters during the 2014 Gaza war in which 44 Palestinians died and 227 others were injured, an inquiry ordered by UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon has concluded.
> 
> Releasing the report on Monday, Ban condemned the attacks “as a matter of the utmost gravity” and said “those who looked to them for protection and who sought and were granted shelter there had their hopes and trust denied”.
> ...







 LATER RESCINDED AND ALTERED TO READ ISRAEL STRUCK AT WEAPONS SITES IN SCHOOL GROUNDS CAUSING MINIMAL DAMAGE TO THE SCHOOLS


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> A disabled people's home is a valid target for israeli thugs and their apologists







 No an illegal weapons launch site or a building used for any military purpose is a valid target for any nations armed forces. Even the arab muslims have this right, but they cant target a school, hospital or any other civilian  building just because it gets them propaganda value.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> There was no military benefit from bombing  the disabled peoples home








 SAYS WHO   as if there wasnt then it would not have been targeted


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Blah, blah, blah.  I've read about some of those "attacks" on schools.  A bunch of poor innocent refugees lined up for tea and cookies and they get shelled by the evil Israeli (read:  Jews).  And then you find out that every single person who died in that particular shelling is a male between the ages of 15 and 40.  Hmmmmm.
> ...








According to profiling this made them all potential terrorists in the pay of hamas


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> Rockets are indiscriminate by nature, when someone gives them controllable munitions, their fire will become more accurate,







And this makes them illegal and a war crime to use, so time to start arresting the arab muslims, start with the delagation in the UN


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

fanger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Dead lslamo's are worth the propaganda, right?
> ...








 That is what they have said themselves in the letter to the UN. Proving that they do not want peace just the genocide of the Jews and the destruction of Israel.

It was hamas that said this not the Jews


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 ACCORDING TO WHICH HATE SITE THIS TIME. There is a ceasefire line that acts as a border in such circumstances, and the UN has stated that the rockets are illegal and a war crime.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 More than you have as the nations in the area see hamas as a terrorist group, and also see the arab mulsims calling themselves palestinians as terrorists.


 What do you have other than islamonazi propaganda and BLOOD LIBELS


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

It does not matter what you can find.  But first, the entire question is moot.  Israel is interested in defensible borders, not the incorporation of the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  As an adjunct, Israel want to contain a viable and demonstrable threat posed by Hostile Arab Palestinians.  The release of containment is detrimental to regional security.



P F Tinmore said:


> I can find no evidence that Israel has ever legally acquired that land.
> 
> BTW, it is illegal to annex occupied territory.


*(COMMENT)*

Legal - Illegal makes no difference. 

Sovereignty and Independence have nothing to do with "legal or Illegal." 

••  It has to do with implied recognition.
••  The sovereignty and independence is proved by the lack of higher incorporation_ (Israel being the supreme corporate entity)_.
••  As other international governments recognize the authority of the Government of Israel to regulation Immigration, Customs, import and export taxes, etc, is the acceptance of legality.
••  As the diplomatic community recognizes authority and establishes relations, then that is a form of tacit approval.​The lack of recognition sets the conditions and encourages indefinite "occupation" that eventually morphs into either a "dependent territory" or a "protectorate."

The Ostrich Approach _(sting their head in the sand)_ has no effect on reality.  Either there is a government in control --- or --- there is no government in control.  The claim of imaginary control is the denial of reality.

But there is no indication by Israel that it even wants the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  Israel is not trying to annex the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  The West Bank and Gaza Strip area  cultural and monetary Albatros.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> It does not matter what you can find.  But first, the entire question is moot.  Israel is interested in defensible borders, not the incorporation of the West Bank or Gaza Strip.  As an adjunct, Israel want to contain a viable and demonstrable threat posed by Hostile Arab Palestinians.  The release of containment is detrimental to regional security.
> 
> ...


Holy smokescreen, Batman.

WOW, did you duck that post.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

I said "IF" (Conditional statement).



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > However, if as you claim, that Gaza and the West Bank are all one with Israel, then their is no occupation.  Although you might make a case for either a "Protectorate Territory" or "Dependent Territory."  In which case, international law does not apply to domestic issues.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

•  The International Community cannot interfere with Domestic Issues.  [Article 2(7)]
•  If Israel is part of Palestine as "P F Tinmore" and HAMAS Claim, then it is all one country.
•  All one country implies any dispute between the people of Israel and the people of the Wes Bank and Gaza Strip is a non-international (domestic nature).
•  "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene 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.​That would, in point of fact, make Israel a Secessionist State (a State that formally withdraws from the former Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied to establish Sovereignty and Independence over a separate political entity); with people exercising their right of self determination.

That would make the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict a form of Civil War _(a war between political factions or regions within the same country)_.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, I did not duck that post at all.  There is no "smokescreen."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Sovereignty and Independence have nothing to do with "legal or Illegal."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You implied that "legal" or "Illegal" applied to the question.  I said it did not and told you why.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> I said "IF" (Conditional statement).
> 
> ...


Actually it is a war between the native population and a foreign colonial power.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, I did not duck that post at all.  There is no "smokescreen."
> 
> ...


Legal or illegal is irrelevant to Israel because they never gave a rat's ass about any law. Apparently you do not either.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


Your ranting is both flawed and irrelevant. Firstly, you make the continued error of suggesting the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters / land grabbers can be described as a native population. Secondly, Israel was never a foreign colonial power. Your befuddlement seems to center around confusing some invention of yours regarding a foreign colonial power (the Brits?), previously at war with Arab squatters. 

What war was fought between the British and Arab squatters?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Israel was declared by the foreign Jewish Agency that was created in Zurich by the foreign World Zionist Organization.

Of the 37 people who signed Israel's declaration of independence only one was born in Palestine and he was the son of immigrants.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 Irrelevant as the LoN had accepted the Jewish Agency as representing the Jews of the world in regards to their National Home. Because you don't like the Jews has no bearing on the truth and reality. The Mandate allowed for this and you are not in any position to query this.


 STOP ALTERING THE TRUTH TO SIT WITH YOUR POV.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Oh yeah --- "The Mysterious "Colonial Power."



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Who is the "Colonial Power?"

OH, be sure to let the UN Committee of 24 (Special Committee on Decolonization) know.  They could they were unable to find any country in the Middle East under which *Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples* General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) was applicable.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 11, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Oh yeah --- "The Mysterious "Colonial Power."
> 
> ...


Maybe because another UN body, the UNCCP, was supposed to address that problem. Who knows? The UN runs more on politics than on legal principles.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 11, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Of course. Arab-Moslem ineptitude and incompetence always finds blame elsewhere.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









Or more on islamonazi propaganda because the arab muslims run so many of the sections. As the NGO  UNWATCH has proven the UN is as anti semitic and racist towards the Jews as you are


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I think you have this all wrong.  There was a United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) was created by UN A/RES/194(III) in 1948; for the conflicts at the time.  But in the establishment of this UNCCP in 1948, Decolonization was NOT in the mandate because A/RES/15/1514 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was not written until December 1960.  



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

You may want to revise your position here.  The establishment of a Special Committee on the Implementation of the A/RES/15/1514 (XVI) Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples of 14 December 1960.  The Special Committee was established by *A/RES/**1654 (XVI) (1961)*. 

The idea of creating the UNCCP was first raised by the UN Mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte, in his Progress Report of September 1948.  The UNCCP had a twin mandates: 

•  A Broad Mandate _(paragraphs 4 through 6)_ for conciliation of all outstanding issues between the parties.
•   A Specific Mandate _(paragraph 11_) for the protection and promotion of a durable solution for Palestine refugees. ​
The first problem held within the Authority itself UN A/RES/194(III), which is a Progress Report, and the parties to the conflict were considered Israel and the Arab States _(Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt)_.  There was not entity known as the "Palestinians" or any variation _(to include the failed start-up All Palestine Government)_.

The second problem was the inseparable is of the "Right-of-Return (RoR), Repatriation - Resettlement -Rehabilitation (Re3)."  The UNCCP wanted to grant the Arab Delegations a comprehensive plan for the settlement of the entire refugee problem; and this repatriation would be put into effect only as an integral part of a general and final peace settlement.   

It has been Customary Law that the aggressor that failed in the attempt to suppress a people from establishing sovereignty and independence should pay the *Re3*.  Similarly, it has been Customary Law that the each nation (including Israel) shall exercise its national sovereignty if it decides that acceptance, of extraordinary UNCCP negotiated requirements, would jeopardized the the internal security interests of its its nation and/or compromise the ability to adequately defend against similar future attempts.  That would include that actual stated threat the Arabs of Palestinians will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition; and any attempt to establish a Jewish State in Arab Territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense.  This would pretty much negate the potential that the *RoR* for the Arabs of Palestinians would be acceptable under any reason.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I think you have this all wrong.  There was a United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP) was created by UN A/RES/194(III) in 1948; for the conflicts at the time.  But in the establishment of this UNCCP in 1948, Decolonization was NOT in the mandate because A/RES/15/1514 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples was not written until December 1960.
> 
> ...


The UNCCP was based on the partition plan that flopped and, of course, it flopped too. The only thing that was in it for the Palestinians was their right to return and that flopped too because it was mishandled from the start. They put the right to return into a negotiated position not in the enforcement. Not to mention that the refugees were not a part of the negotiations. The territorial negotiations were by those who had no authority over that territory.

The UN has continuously fucked up everything starting with Resolution 181. If they would have followed their own charter, we would not be in the mess we are in today.

Enter a new generation of Palestinians who will not except foreigners determining their fate and negotiating away their rights.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 12, 2016)

Yep, Islam has perfected the art of self detonating children.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







No legal right of return and you cant provide a link that says it is an international law.  The UNCCP was not based on res 181 at all as it came in after the arab muslims refused to accept 181 and the Jews had declared independence. Once again you try and mix up facts to meet your POV and fail.
 The arab muslims had no authority over that land so they should not have been offered Jewish land by the UN in the first place. So yes if the UN had not exceeded their authority and enforced the LoN treaties and Mandate then we would not have the situation we have today. A few well placed strikes and some forfeiture of sovereignty would have the desired effect.
 We hear this every generation and the first thing they do is go running to foreigners to determine their fate and negotiate away their rights. Just look at arafat, abbas and the other "leaders" that line their pockets before passing on the aid to the people, all foreingers that use the two year rule.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 12, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


No legal right of return and you cant provide a link that says it is an international law.​


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Right of Return (RoR) is is not as easy as you think.  If it was, everyone would be armed with the legal citation and the source in Customary Law, International Law, Accords, Agreements, and Treaties.  By the Pro-Arab-Palestinians always go back to the General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948, the Palestinian refugees have the right to return and receive financial compensation for lost property.  It is reasonable to assume, that Arab Palestinian people have made the claim for a half century, and will continue to make the claim to the RoR; the Pro-Arab-Palestinians movement is relentless in trying to assert that what happened to Palestinians is a form of ethnic cleansing.  They are trying to criminalize the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  They will use the RoR to overrun the Jewish State of Israel. 

For the UN to entertain that line of assertion that it is either implement the RoR or support Ethnic Cleansing.  This is a False Dilemmas (Logical Fallacy) --- in that the Pro-Arab-Palestinians imply there are only two choices (you are either if RoR or against the Pro-Arab-Palestinians Movement.



P F Tinmore said:


> No legal right of return and you cant provide a link that says it is an international law.​


*(COMMENT)*

In fact, the entire line of claims by the Pro-Arab-Palestinians reaffirm the position they hold:

•   The recognition of the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Agreement, the Order in Council and the associated Mandate of Palestine or any authoritative documentation arising therefrom are illegitimate.
•  That the Allied Powers imposing Jew Immigration to Jewish people willing to assist in the reconstituting and establishment of the Jewish National Home represents an act of aggression and invasion.
•  The Pro-Arab-Palestinians are determined to oppose, with all the means at their disposal; in an attempt to disrupt any scheme that provides for the dissection, segregation or partition of the Territory formerly under the Administration of the Mandate.
•  Arab Palestinian made a solid declaration that it is the "unflinching determination of every Arab in Palestine to defend his country against any power or group of powers or any force going to Palestine to partition the country. The Arabs are in duty and honor bound to defend their country to the last man."​
There is no authoritative Pro-Arab-Palestinians definition of what constitutes the RoR.  And since the UNRWA CERI _(Consolidate Eligibility Requirements Instruction)_ is not International Law.  What is true is that today, in order for a Arab-Palestinian to have been an actual displaced person whose residence was Palestine _(during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948)_, would be ≈ 68 years of age.  Only about 4% of the 2,785,366 (represents Palestinian population only) (July 2015 est.) are 65 years of age and older.
Life Expectancy at Birth:

 West Bank Figures

Total Population: 75.91 years
Male: 73.79 years
Female: 78.17 years (2015 est.)
Country Comparison to the World: 92​The practical side of the implementation of RoR is that it places the sworn enemies in the rear area of Israel and opens an entirely new type and kind of internal threat.  Additionally, just out of West Bank alone that would place 111K+ unemployed people  to the already burdened economy:
Unemployment rate:

 West Bank Figures

17.7% (2014 est.)
18.6% (2013 est.)
note: excludes Gaza Strip
country comparison to the world: 163​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Aug 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Right of Return (RoR) is is not as easy as you think.  If it was, everyone would be armed with the legal citation and the source in Customary Law, International Law, Accords, Agreements, and Treaties.  By the Pro-Arab-Palestinians always go back to the General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948, the Palestinian refugees have the right to return and receive financial compensation for lost property.  It is reasonable to assume, that Arab Palestinian people have made the claim for a half century, and will continue to make the claim to the RoR; the Pro-Arab-Palestinians movement is relentless in trying to assert that what happened to Palestinians is a form of ethnic cleansing.  They are trying to criminalize the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  They will use the RoR to overrun the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> ...



It is shameful how no surrounding Arab country to Israel will grant their Palestinians a right of return.  Is that because the Arab countries know the Palestinians very well?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 And she does not state the date of implementation of the law, just the resolution.


 Just to upset you here is a link that states it is not INTERNATIONAL LAW

Right of return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *right of return* is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

*By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law*, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead,* international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.[3]*

This is why the Jews cant return to Mecca and Medina, the arab muslims blocked the passing of the right into international law.


 YOU LOSE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU DONT LOOK FOR THE TRUTH, JUST SOMETHING TO BASH THE JEWS WITH


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> The Right of Return (RoR) is is not as easy as you think.  If it was, everyone would be armed with the legal citation and the source in Customary Law, International Law, Accords, Agreements, and Treaties.  By the Pro-Arab-Palestinians always go back to the General Assembly Resolution 194 (III) of December 11, 1948, the Palestinian refugees have the right to return and receive financial compensation for lost property.  It is reasonable to assume, that Arab Palestinian people have made the claim for a half century, and will continue to make the claim to the RoR; the Pro-Arab-Palestinians movement is relentless in trying to assert that what happened to Palestinians is a form of ethnic cleansing.  They are trying to criminalize the establishment of the Jewish National Home.  They will use the RoR to overrun the Jewish State of Israel.
> 
> ...


All that without refuting one word of my video. 

BTW, UNRWA  is a relief agency. It merely defines who is eligible for aid. It has nothing to do with RoR.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 12, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


You make the mistake of desperately wanting to believe these canned YouTube videos you cut and paste. How convenient for you that these Islamic terrorist infomercials are not subject to challenge.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...







 WRONG AGAIN as UNRWA merely decide how much they want to allow hamas and fatah to buy weapons on the blacj market and submits those number to the UN. It is the largest employer of arab muslims calling themselves palestinians.

Oh but it did as it showed that right of return is not a legal concept and has no weight in law.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore et al,

I don’t believe I had an intention of “refuting” (primary intention of proving the video to be wrong or false).  I don’t start-out argumentative where it is not necessary.  I merely outlined some of the factors not taken into account in the “strict compliance” concepts the video presents.

In every comment I make, there is always something left-out or truncated.  You can write an Event-Encyclopedia or multi-volume study on the conflict and still leave something out.  There is a limitation here.

The video presentation did not touch on why the Palestinians were displaced, or what dangers they pose to the peace and security to that landscape.  It merely attempts, as my previous comment discussed, the strategy of trying to demonstrate that everything that does not agree with the Arab Palestinian view is illegal, improper or at fault in some fashion.

I think that the actually history of the Arab Palestinian and the political involvement of the Mufti to exploit religious disputes, demonstrates the weakness and failure of the radicalized Arab Palestinian as is creates an Islamic Resistance, a Jihadist Insurgency, and resort to a harmful new way of life that accelerates and embraces death and dishonors the people and the culture.

  Arab Palestinians send their kids to Jihadist Summer Camp, yet parade the dead bodies of their children around when they intentionally perform military operations in a densely populated areas, and attempted to draw fire, to make a media event out of it.  ​When the people of the world think of a terrorist, the picture they mentally envision is that of the Arab (bomb vest optional).   


			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> All that without refuting one word of my video.


*(COMMENT)*

_There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.
HAMAS Covenant

"The Islamic Land of Palestine is one and cannot be divided. 
There is no difference between Haifa and Nablus, between 
Lod and Ramallah, between Jerusalem and Nazareth. Dividing
 Palestine into cantons and giving recognition to the occupation
 is prohibited by Sharia (Islamic religious law), since Palestinian
 is Wakf (Islamic Trust) for all Moslems in the East and in the
West. No one has the right to give it up or to forsake it. The 
liberation of Palestine is a mandatory obligation for all 
Moslem and not only for our Palestinian nation.”
Shiekh Yuosouf Abu Sneina, _
_Official Cleric of the Al Aqsa Mosque_, ​
Nowhere, in this reference list, does the International Body of Law, require the Jewish State of Israel to repatriate Arab-Palestinians that declared a Jihad before the Declaration of Independence of Israel.   Nor does the International Body of Law, being used as a Trojan Horse, enjoin the Israeli to accept Jihadists, Fedayeen, insurgents, radical Islamist and assorted terrorists that kidnap and murder, specifically zero-in on civilians as targets of conventional and asymmetric attacks, hijackings, piracy, sabotage, bombings and other tactics that spread fear across the general population.  There is no International Law that require Israel to place its citizens in jeopardy by re-admitting Arabs of Palestine that made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

None of these laws are —- by absolute decree —- are applicable under the conditions of conflict, wherein the identified refugees wish to avail themselves of the RoR, yet have pledged an oath to open hostilities and to maintain hostilities until the Jewish National Home is removed.  This oath was made in 1948, even before the the Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel; and before the Arab League Nations coordinated assault.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 13, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore et al,
> 
> I don’t believe I had an intention of “refuting” (primary intention of proving the video to be wrong or false).  I don’t start-out argumentative where it is not necessary.  I merely outlined some of the factors not taken into account in the “strict compliance” concepts the video presents.
> 
> ...


In this Brief, the author argues that the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties had already achieved customary status (binding international law) by 1948. UN Resolution 194, therefore, simply reaffirms international legal principles that were already binding and which required states to allow refugees to return to their places of origin, and prohibited mass expulsion of persons - particularly on discriminatory grounds. UN Resolution 194's consistency with international law and practice over the past five decades further strengthens its value as a normative framework for a durable solution for Palestinian refugees today.

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf


----------



## Hollie (Aug 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore et al,
> ...



Here's a differing opinion.

In August 2010, the position paper, “The Return of Palestinian Refugees to the State of Israel,” was published by the Metzilah Center for Zionist, Jewish, Liberal and Humanist Thought and presented to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and to other decision-makers and academic experts. The paper examined all sources in international law dealing with questions of refugee return. It also reviewed the methods recognized throughout the world for dealing with refugee problems.

International law does not obligate/recognize the legal right of Palestinian refugees to settle in Israeli territory. Such large-scale return was not standard at the time the problem emerged, and it is not used effectively today. While the issue of the refugees needs to be dealt with seriously, Israel should be careful not to recognize a right of return for refugees under international law, since this may be the basis for new legal obligations.

The JPost


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 13, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


Where is the rest of it? This doesn't say anything.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore et al,
> ...








 And the law givers say that it hasnt, and they know more than your islamonazi propagandist in the link. Who are you to overrule the ICC/ICJ who enforce the laws


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 Have they disabled links on your computer because you become agitated


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore,

Well, this is arguable on a couple of points.



P F Tinmore said:


> (binding international law) by 1948. UN Resolution 194, therefore, simply reaffirms international legal principles that were already binding and which required states to allow refugees to return to their places of origin,​


*(COMMENT)*

*UN General Assembly Resolution 194(III)*, when it was adopted, was not an enforceable and binding Resolution.

A/RES/194(III) clearly states "Resolves" and NOT "Reaffirms:"

11. *Resolves* that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;​
UNCCP OFFICIAL RECORDS: SIXTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 18 (A/1985)
While the UNCCP had some very broad powers, there were limitations.  But the primary mandate remained always the same, "achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;" through a process of mutual compromise (give and take).  That is, that no one can intelligently view A/RES/194(III), as a carved-in stone, strict compliance, requirements.  It was always assumed that like all wars though-out history, the victors had some advantages in the negotiated outcomes.  

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

50. Particularly in its mediatory role, the Commission had not only the right but the duty to make realistic give-and-take proposals on all outstanding questions--those which had been the subject of specific General Assembly recommendations as well as those which had not. In drawing up the comprehensive pattern of proposals which it had submitted to the parties, the Commission had not held itself aloof from the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. It had carefully designed the proposals as a means by which the spirit of these resolutions could be implemented in the best interests of all concerned: the Arab States, the State of Israel, the refugees and the world community.​
There were a number of considerations that prevented the success of the UNCCP and a return to peace.  The Arab Delegations made it clear that they would NOT give consideration to the "non-aggression pact" as a supplement to the Armistice Agreements.  And this spread an unspoken suspicion and consequence "with regard to the repatriation of refugees."   The Israel Delegation stated that two of their major considerations in the Conciliation Process were defense imperative, political and economic stability.  The mere fact that the Arab Delegations were unwilling to accept the non-aggression language in the preamble made many outside observers think there was some hidden future agenda _(and as it turned out, there was)_.  The Arab Delegation saw no need to go beyond the Armistice Agreement, the Conciliation language something they considered unnecessary.   This made the yet undefined parameters of a return of Arab refugees much more difficult.  

In the 65 years since that Final Report by the UNCCP, there were the 1956 conflict, the 1967 conflict and the 1973 conflict.  The mandate to achieve some sort of lasting peace did not materialize.   Only Egypt and Jordan have advanced to a return to peace and normalization.  Lebanon and Syria have not even formerly entered into Peace Talks; and the Palestinians have not been able to advance beyond the Oslo Accord in any meaningful way.  Even after the 2005 Withdrawal, the Palestinians returned to open hostilities. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,
> 
> Well, this is arguable on a couple of points.
> 
> ...


OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...



Try reading what Rocco delineated for you.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I did. He gave some reasons why the UNCCP failed but that did not change the law.

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Which was refuted, here:  The JPost


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

RoR is not a binding demand, as the UNCCP enunciated.

No law needed to be changed.  The UDHR and the A/RES/194 are not laws.  And none of the other citations may be implemented if they do not achieve the return of peace in Palestine.



P F Tinmore said:


> OK, so where does that negate the Palestinian's RoR?


*(COMMENT)*

Thus not being a demand (non-binding) but a negotiated outcome from the efforts of the UNCCP, the inability of the UNCCP to strike a mutual agreement in the

" 56. The refusal of the Arab States to subscribe to the undertakings requested by the Conciliation Commission and the very terms of the declaration which they wished to substitute indicated, in the view of the delegation of Israel, that they had no intention of promoting the achievement of peace but that, on the contrary, their intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force."

57.   ...   ...   ...    The Commission  stated that it should be clearly understood that neither the form nor the substance of the declaration of either party could alter the obligations assumed by the parties in accordance either with the provisions of the Armistice Agreements or with the terms of the United Nations Charter. It was equally apparent that such declarations could not alter the import of the resolutions of the Security Council.​
The UNCCP remarked in conclusion that:

"81. This pattern of proposals comprised practical arrangements for a solution of the refugee question, and a method of revising or amending the Armistice Agreements concluded between Israel and her neighbours with a view to promoting the return of peace in Palestine.

82. In linking those two issues together in a comprehensive pattern of proposals the Commission took account of two factors:

(a) that the Armistice Agreements, although of a military character, were designed as a means of transition from war to peace and provided for procedures by which that aim could be attained; and

(b) that positive progress in the transition from war to peace in Palestine is impossible if the refugee problem remains unsolved."​The BIG Catch 22 here in the discussions is that the UNCCP understood that Paragraph 11 of A/RES/194(III) (RoR) could not be implemented.

NOTHING negates the idea of RoR, what prevents it from implementation is that the conditions then were not set:

•   No peace in the RoR
•  No security with the RoR

84. In particular, the Government of Israel is not prepared to implement the part of paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 which resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.

85. The Arab Governments, on the other hand, are not prepared fully to implement paragraph 5 of the said resolution, which calls for the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them and Israel. The Arab Governments in their contacts with the Commission have evinced no readiness to arrive at such a peace settlement with the Government of Israel.​
Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the *General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III)* 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.

11. _Resolves_ that the refugees *wishing to return* to their homes and *live at peace* with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Meaning:
•  wishing to return to their homes
•  live at peace with their neighbors​
In 1948, the Arab Delegation stipulated that they would never accept a Jewish National Home in Arab Territory.  And in 1951,  (the UNCCP Para 56 above) the Arab "intention was to continue all activities which a war entailed, short of the use of military force."  The conditions for RoR were not met then, and deteriorated significant over time to the present date.  There is no reasonable expectation that the Arab-Palestinians (refugees) or Lebanon or Syria will reach an accommodation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> RoR is not a binding demand, as the UNCCP enunciated.
> 
> ...


11. _Resolves_ that the refugees *wishing to return* to their homes and *live at peace* with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,​
Indeed, that is the key.

Second, the Resolution affirms that return must be guided by the *individual choice of each refugee.* According to the UN Mediator’s report, it was an* "unconditional right" of the refugees "to make a free choice [which] should be fully respected."* Reviewing the drafting history of Resolution 194, the UN Secretariat stated that paragraph 11 “intended to confer upon the refugees as individuals the right of exercising a free choice as to their future.”

http://www.badil.org/phocadownload/Badil_docs/bulletins-and-briefs/Brief-No.8.pdf​


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,
> ...







 Here 

*Resolves* that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date,


If you read what it says and understand what it means.   It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


When was that determined.

Link?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








This outpouring of islamonazi propaganda sums it up perfectly.

 Did you read the remit of the site


BADIL-Briefs
aim to support the Palestinian-Arab and internatio
nal debate
about strategies for promotion of Palestinian refug
ees' right of return,
restitution, and compensation in the framework of a
just and durable solution
of the Palestinian/Arab - Israeli conflict.


Very biased against the Jews and their rights under international law, which is why you used it


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Read the words in the UN resolution were it says that, the link is posted if you bother to look


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


They want to follow the law.

Israel hates law.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You didn't understand the question. Try again.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



The Arabs-Moslems have consistently rejected the *live at peace*, meme. 

Have you read the Hamas charter and listened to the putrid bile being spewed by the various Islamist Death Cults occupying the disputed territories?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 14, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


How many do you want?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Do your usual spam and flood the thread with silly YouTube videos.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...







 And you can prove this from a source other than your usual islamionazi propaganda outlets.

 What I have seen is Israel wants the law to act equally for everyone, while you islamonazi propagandists dont want any laws to workin the Jews favour. If you had your way every Jew under 100 years old would be murdered to stop them living in peace.

What laws do the arab muslims accept and obey then concerning the land of palestine ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 I do understand the question and the link was given by Rocor, it is you that refuses to understand the answers when they prove you wrong


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 how about 3 from non islamonazi propaganda sites that have different sources


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, it is not an unconditional "right."

Even with the Resolution --- it stipulates two conditions; which must be credibly TRUE simultaneously.

SOURCE:  Your source "BADIL" is a  Resource Center, exclusively an advocate for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights.  All its paper take the side of the Palestinian.  The sources I quoted are archive official documents by the actual activities attempting to craft a solution for the return of peace in the region; neither exclusively Israeli or Palestinian advocates.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Remembering that the paragraph 11 of the *General Assembly Resolution of A/RES/194(III)* 11 December 1948 outlined the intend.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The right to make a free choice is NOT the same thing as guarantee that choice will be acceptable to the either the Israelis or the UNCCP; a point that was distinctly and was made very VERY clear in *Posting #149 (supra)*.

The individual "right to choose" (Palestinian option) is not a case of forced acceptance (a _fait __accompli_ to the Israeli).

The KEY is to understand the KEY.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The link was already provided.



P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > If you read what it says and understand what it means.   It says that the arab muslims have to give assurances that they will not resort to any form of violence or belligerence before being allowed to return. Any that have a proven record of attacks against Israel are not welcome and will be deported straight away. The arab muslims that are Israeli citizens met the criteria and are allowed to stay
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

All of this was provided to you in the previous posting.


 22. In the Chairman's statement it was further pointed out that no constructive progress towards a solution of existing problems would be possible unless all the parties to the dispute, at the outset of the discussions, expressed their determination to respect each other's right to security and freedom from attack, to refrain from warlike or hostile acts against one another, *and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine*.

49. It was further pointed out that the terms of reference and the powers of the Commission were defined in resolution 194 (III) and subsequent resolutions. The Commission had no authority to assume any functions or powers beyond those assigned to it by the General Assembly. By resolution 194 (III) the Commission had been given the primary mandate "to take steps to assist the governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them". In entrusting the Commission with this responsibility, the Assembly had purposely refrained from restricting the Commission's authority within narrow limits. On the contrary, *the Assembly expected the Commission to exercise its judgment as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine* and had instructed it to assume, in so far as it considered necessary, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine.

And Annex B, Paragraph 5 
Chairman of the ConciliationCommission to the delegations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and to the delegation of Israel

The Conciliation Commission is aware of the disparity between the formulations suggested by the parties. However, the Commission considers that the parties, by offering these formulations, have contributed to the creation of a favourable atmosphere for the present discussions, *and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine*.​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, it is not an unconditional "right."
> 
> ...


The Palestinians have the right to return.

Israel has no right to block that.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The link was already provided.
> 
> ...


or hostile acts against one another, *and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine*.

*as to the best ways and means to be adopted in facilitating the return of peace in Palestine
*
for the present discussions, *and for the promotion of the return of permanent peace in Palestine*.​
Now who were the only people who were* not *at the table?

That is why there is BDS. The Palestinians are tired of foreigners always pushing them around.

Note: It does not say peace in Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 The produce the definitive link that gives the date of implementation of the International law.  As the UN, ICC and ICJ have all said there is no legal right of return. If there was Mecca would be full of Jews and there would not be any problems in the M.E.as the arab league forces would be protecting the Jews round the clock.



Right of return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 As a rebuttal to UNGA resolution 194 being used in support, opponents note that General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding and usually have no force as international law.

*The right of return is a principle which is drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, intended to enable people to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin.*

*The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (read together with its 1967 Protocol) does not give refugees a right to return*, but rather prohibits return (refoulment) to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom.[1] The Convention binds the many countries which have ratified it.[2]

*By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law,* although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship





 Very simple language used to explain to even the most dumb of people, there is no legal right of return, and you cant find any enactment of that.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 And why did they refuse to be present, making your whinge just that the whinge of a petulant child who cant get their own way. From 1917 the arab muslims have refused to take part in any meetings to reduce the violence in the M.E. because they prefer bloodshed and warfare


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The "RoR" is not unconditional.  Anything that leads to additional conflict, or erupt into another Civil War is inconsistent with the purpose of securing a permanent peace.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is not an unconditional "right."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians cannot meet the conditions for the "RoR" to even be considered. 

Just because an Arab Palestinian says they have a certain "right" does not mean they know the criteria for implementation.  The UNCCP came to that conclusion, just as the UNPC before it and the Mandatory before that.

The Israelis has fought war after war over these issues.  As long as the RoR represents a threat to the security and safety of the Jewish State of Israel and the citizenry, the RoR will be disallowed. 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 15, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Arab-Palestinians have the right to think this way, and hold this political position.  It does not mean that the Jewish State of Israel must surrender any military, political or diplomatic position it currently holds.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > •  or hostile acts against one another, *and to promote the return of permanent peace in Palestine*.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab League established the new 1945 Arab Higher Committee (AHC) to speak on behalf of all Arabs not otherwise having representation of certain issues.  Of course, anything having to do with the Armistice Arrangements was unique to specific Arab States _(Palestine not being a state, thus having no Armistice Arrangement)_.

The BDS is an NGO.  It cannot enter negotiations as it is not competent.

This idea of the Arab-Palestinians being:  "tired of foreigners always pushing them around" dwindles away a little bit each day. The State of Israel is composed of (CIA Factbook  Estimate 2013):

•  Jewish 75% of which:

•  Israel-born 74.4%,
•  Europe/America/Oceania-born 17.4%,
•  Africa-born 5.1%, Asia-born 3.1%),​•  Non-Jewish 25% (mostly Arab)​If you are arguing that the International Law and the UNCCP Guidance and Mandate did not intend for the UNCCP to include Israel in its mandate to form a permanent peace, then there is just no further basis on which to discuss the topic.  This is, in effect, a represents the further justification for Arab-Palestinian containment.

The Jewish State of Israel is not going to permit the repatriation of a people or culture into its sovereignty if, at the outset, a continuation of the conflict will continue; or that the peace and security is placed in jeopardy.  

The _status quo_ is preferable to the security threat posed by allowing Arab-Palestinians that support the position that:  "It does not say peace in Israel."

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## MJB12741 (Aug 15, 2016)

The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 15, 2016)

MJB12741,  et al,

There is this thing called "statecraft."  It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations.  The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy.  And as everyone knows, the "military option" _(as it is sometime called)_ is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes _(on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results)_, based on the national security objective.

This is not really rocket science for most of us.  While we may not articulate it in some coherent fashion, at the micro-levels of interfacing with everyday life, we each instinctively know _(Except for the Simple Minded)_  that some behaviors are societally acceptable and behaviors will have adverse consequences.  



MJB12741 said:


> The Zionists in Israel need to put an end to placating Palestinian demands which results in rocket missiles for a thank you.


*(COMMENT)*

The risks in promoting fiction between the Israelis and the Arab-Palestinians matter because stakes create tension. The protagonist’s (Arab-Palestinians)  ultimate goal and objective, is a moving target.  As if by Magic, it can change right before your eyes.  Whether you respect the policy of the Palestinian Authority or the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), they each stand firm on the RoR for Palestinian refugees and displaced individuals; their right to their homes from which they were expelled or were prevented from returning to, including in the *occupied territories of 1948 or 1967, i.e., to all of Palestine*. . 

If the Arab-Palestinian goal and objective is low, then tension is dependent on the aggravation presented by Arab-Palestinian jihadist activity, insurgent rocket and mortar fire, . The stakes are often linked to inner conflict, as the protagonist wonders if what is at stake is worth it. In these situations, the story line forces him to reconsider his beliefs and values.  As the Arab-Palestinians cycle through their these period of incitement to violence, ---  attack, suffer casualties, sue for peace, only to rearm again ... ... ... the the tension will build until the the domestic aspects of leadership becomes so hot that it burst and the executive leadership triggers another military intervention.  Once the Leaders go reiterate their long standing oath to liberate the territory formerly under the Mandate, the environment will burst.

*(ARAB-PALESTINIAN MANTRA)*

No matter which document or policy you review (the 1948 Threat Letter, the 1968 Palestinian National Charter, the 1988 HAMAS Covenant, OR the 2012 HAMAS Policy Statement, the policy always comes back to the beginning:


Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it -for any reason or under any circumstances and pressures. 

Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, as well as standing and respect in all religions. 

•  Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.
•  Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights. ​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> There is this thing called "statecraft."  It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations.  The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy.  And as everyone knows, the "military option" _(as it is sometime called)_ is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes _(on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results)_, based on the national security objective.
> 
> ...









 And they forget that palestine included Jordan, part of Syria, Saudi, Egypt and Lebanon prior to 1924, so you dont see them claiming all that land as the palestinian state because they know their fellow muslims will just destroy them.


----------



## Mindful (Aug 16, 2016)

Here's a nice Palestinian "contribution".

Palestinian activist  says that Jews have “at best, animal rights”


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> MJB12741,  et al,
> 
> There is this thing called "statecraft."  It is the development and implementation of diplomatic and political strategies for dealing with the ever evolving environment of international relations.  The theory and application of force and threats of force have been, and will continue to be, a necessary instrument of diplomacy.  And as everyone knows, the "military option" _(as it is sometime called)_ is not in the military decision-making process for the more advanced nations; but, an executive decision based on national security considerations and the respective priorities assigned, with respect to the consequences, economic impact, domestic and international backlash, and outcomes _(on a scale of most dangerous to affordably successful with positive results)_, based on the national security objective.
> 
> ...


Palestine, from its river to its sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinians; their homeland, and their legitimate right.​
That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.


----------



## Mindful (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,  et al,
> ...



You mean the  Jews.


*Palestinian Jew* is the term used to refer to a *Jewish* inhabitant of *Palestine* (known in Hebrew as Eretz Israel, the "Land of Israel") prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,  et al,
> ...








So which river, which sea, how far north and how far south. The Israelis could say the same thing and mean the North sea, the river Ganges, North pole and south pole. Like everything the arab muslims say it is meaningless and can be taken to mean anything.



 And what international oe International treaty gives them the right to this land after they signed it away in 1917 ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 16, 2016)

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


There were Palestinian Jews but they were not the ones who declared independence. The native Jews were opposed to a Jewish state.


----------



## Mindful (Aug 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...



It's like Groundhog Day with him


----------



## Mindful (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Do you know anything,  anything atall about Jews and Judaism? Before you shout your mouth off with sweeping statements?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 16, 2016)

Mindful said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Sure, do you?


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 16, 2016)

Mindful, Phoenall,  et al,

Actually, there is a relationship here, between these two concepts; from and external view.

•   The notion that "Palestine" can only be "Arab Land" is a justification to eradicate the Jewish National Home.
•   The dehumanization is the process by which the Arab-Palestinian clears the way morally and ethically for extermination (pest control).  ​


Phoenall said:


> And they forget that palestine included Jordan, part of Syria, Saudi, Egypt and Lebanon prior to 1924, so you dont see them claiming all that land as the palestinian state because they know their fellow muslims will just destroy them.


*(COMMENT)*

Yes, read in isolation, it sometimes appears to be contradictory; but it is not.  The Arab-Palestinian defined "Palestine"  as being "from its river to its sea, from its north to its south." 

This statement is  a bit ambiguous.  Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land.  Sometimes they refer to the territory formerly under mandate at the time of termination.

Having said that, there are factions buried deep within the Arab-Palestinian Community that believe the Hashemite Kingdom needs to be ruled by Palestinians.  This is a Latent Agenda (hidden and unspoken) with the Fedayeen dating back to the late 1960;s.  At some point the Arab-Palestinian will turn its attention back towards Jordan, just as they did in 1970 in a bit at Regime Change.  



Mindful said:


> Here's a nice Palestinian "contribution".
> Palestinian activist  says that Jews have “at best, animal rights”


*(COMMENT)*

There are many (not all) Arab factions which agree that the Jewish People are subhuman.   And to the radicalized Arab, it become important _(not only)_ to define the Jewish Culture and People as less than human, but that the dehumanization process continue; as a generationally transmitted trait.  These traits and beliefs about the subhuman characteristic if the Jewish People passed-on as if it was some type of Multigenerational Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).  The questions about existence, knowledge and ethics of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. --- as seen by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) --- becomes a truth and reality all its own.  These is exactly how the "Palestinian summer camps in Jerusalem and Gaza --- go about actively indoctrinating young children with radical jihadist ideology and preparing them for martyrdom (suicide) operations" becomes as natural as a Catholic Altar Boy  learning when to genuflect in church.   The practice and ritual become reality, which is ia form of truth passing from parents to their offspring; expressed in terms of historical or mythical explanation.  (See "_*Hamas . . . uses schools . . . to spread the gospel about their jihad, or holy war, and to recruit young suicide bombers with the lure of martyrdom*_":  Introduction: Structure, Arguments, and Conceptual Framework)  (Also See:  "Hamas has introduced a new textbook for 55,000 high-school students in the Gaza Strip. The new book is just one part of Hamas’ efforts to _indoctrinate Palestinian youth with hatred of Israel and Jews_.")

PA textbooks support violence and demonization of Israel, Jews, report finds:
It also promotes the “demonization of Israel and Jews, including the characterization of Israel as an evil entity that should be annihilated,” the report found.​*(THE ANALOGY)*

In the world of Physics-Astronomy, Educators and scientist tell me that more than 80% of the mass of the universe is made up of material that I cannot see _(no matter what instrument I use or what part of the spectrum I check)_, hear _(no matter the amplification)_, smell _(no matter the olfactory capability),_ taste _(no matter the sensation of flavor)_, or feel _(no matter the sensitivity to the touch)_.  Other than the fact my wife _(the same 19 year old I married 38 years ago)_ think I'm a philistine _(utterly lacking intellectually, in aesthetic refinement,  or is contentedly commonplace in ideas and tastes)_ --- why should I believe these educators and scientist?  The existence of such a material or substance flies in the face of logic.  Why?  Because I was, many moons ago, indoctrinated to believe in the Democritus’ view - which was that all substances on Earth where made of small particles called atoms _(not Earth, Wind, Fire and Water from Aristotle's view)_.  And this indoctrination (along with the four food groups) stuck with me for decades.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Stupid reply.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > MJB12741,  et al,
> ...


Well gee whiz. That's little more than a reiteration of the Hamas Charter wherein they define all of Isreal as an islamist waqf. Reiterating the rantings of Islamic terrorists who themselves are reiterating the rantings of an Arab warlord is hardly meaningful dialogue.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 According to which islamonazi propaganda media outlet, as they wanted the safety of a state as much as any other Jew. Your islamonazi lies will never trump the truth, no matter how many times you repeat them


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

Mindful said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 He is either a multiple personality or a multitude of persons the number of times he/she repeats the same islamonazi propaganda


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Simple question that even your limited intelligence should be able to answer.

 When did the arab muslims from outside the area get ownership and sovereignty of the land granted to the Jews as their national home. What treaty or international law handed them the title deeds, other than the fake ones arafat was selling in the suks and markets at the time.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 What is the procedure on entering a Synagogue then ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 16, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Mindful, Phoenall,  et al,
> 
> Actually, there is a relationship here, between these two concepts; from and external view.
> 
> ...








 Let us call it what they themselves call it FILASTIN, and the arab muslims that infest the land FILASTINES. That way there can be no confusion as to who we are talking about. The palestinians will be the Jews and Christians starting from 70C.E., and the filastines starting from 1964 C.E.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 16, 2016)

Just when you think that the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists in Pal'istan can't possibly redefine their portion of humanity in terms any more vile than they managed to accomplish just a week ago, they offer a surprise by plumbing new depths of depravity.

PA to kids: Don't be afraid to die martyr's death


Such a wonderful contribution to humanity.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 16, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Just when you think that the Arab-Moslem Death Cultists in Pal'istan can't possibly redefine their portion of humanity in terms any more vile than they managed to accomplish just a week ago, they offer a surprise by plumbing new depths of depravity.
> 
> PA to kids: Don't be afraid to die martyr's death
> 
> ...



This makes me want to vomit.  One of my children just graduated from high school and I can't imagine having a graduation ceremony celebrating murderers for their "contribution" to their society.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 16, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


So, if I say the sky is blue and Hamas says the sky is blue that means I support Hamas?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Only if everyone else says the sky is white


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


As I noted, your comments are in concert with the position of Hamas and with the position of other islamo-fascist groups which are explicit in their calls for "wiping Israel off the map". 

There's no need for you to employ taqiyya.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

The (so-called ) "right to self-determination" cannot be used to supplant the the sovereignty and integrity of another.

]





P F Tinmore said:


> That is Palestine's required defined territory as stated in their 1948 declaration of independence.


*(COMMENT)*

The 1948 All Palestine Government (APG) Declaration of Independence which attempted to incorporate the sovereignty of Israel was then and is now "bogus."

Trying to argue this point is simply ridiculous.  Even the APG itself was not real.  That became obvious when the Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959.  Where was the right of self-determination then?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
> 
> The (so-called ) "right to self-determination" cannot be used to supplant the the sovereignty and integrity of another.
> 
> ...





> The 1948 All Palestine Government (APG) Declaration of Independence which attempted to incorporate the sovereignty of Israel was then and is now "bogus."


I have heard that a gazillion times but nobody has posted anything showing it to be true.


> Trying to argue this point is simply ridiculous.  Even the APG itself was not real.  That became obvious when the Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959.  Where was the right of self-determination then?


The right of self determination is the right of the people of the place. A state or government is not a requirement.


> Most Respectfully,
> R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

The Great Philosophers and Zen Masters, in discussions with students --- seldom impart data or direct knowledge to the students.  "Insight" and "enlightenment" are not a matter of memory or functions of language and mathematics.    "Insight" and "enlightenment" is attainable by means of a formula or scrupulously following rules or directions.   Instead, "insight" and "enlightenment" on the ability to adaptively think about individuals and the multiples, the local area, the global view, the solar community, the galactic constituents and the universe; orienting yourself to the conditions that present the "now."  It is sometimes a need to find a wholly new way of making sense of the reality _(U Yun Qin, ≈ 450 BCE)_.  In the 17th Century, in a period of enlightenment, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would come to call this the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR).  You may not know or understand the progression or a reason for a specific event, but if it happened, then their was a chain of causality.

PSR is very applicable to the arguments presented about the Arab-Israeli Conflict.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The 1948 All Palestine Government (APG) Declaration of Independence which attempted to incorporate the sovereignty of Israel was then and is now "bogus."
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

I. Questions to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Transjordan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon:

(a) Are armed elements of your armed forces or irregular forces sponsored by your Government now operating
(1) in Palestine;
(2) in areas (towns, cities, districts) of Palestine where the Jews are in the majority?​
The Answer:  Page 418 Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-1948

In its reply dated May 24 (S/775) the Arab Higher Committee stated in answer to question (a) that it exercised political authority over the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Palestine.  Being composed of representatives of the different Arab political parties, it formed a coalition which expressed Arab public opinion in Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee concluded further that it therefore spoke in the name of the majority of all of Palestine, inasmuch as the Arabs were in the majority in all districts and sub-districts except that of Jaffa, in which Tel Aviv is located.

The Enlightenment:  It cannot be the case that the All Palestine Government (APG) and the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) could simultaneously "exercised political authority over the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Palestine;" and that the AHC "spoke in the name of the majority of all of Palestine."​
The reply of the Provisional Government of Israel (S/766) to the questions addressed to the "Jewish authorities in Palestine" was transmitted by the acting representative of Israel at the United Nations on May 22.​The Answer:  Page 418 Yearbook of the United Nations, 1947-1948
​In reply to questions (a) and (b) it was stated that the Provisional Government of Israel was actually exercising control of the entire area of the Jewish State as defined in the General Assembly's resolution of November 29, 1947. In addition, the Provisional Government of Israel was exercising control over certain parts of Palestine outside the territory of the State of Israel, parts which, with the notable exception of Jerusalem,
​For Your Reference:

•   1947-48 Part 1: United Nations. Section 3: The Security Council.  Chapter D: Political and security questions  Beginning Page 439
•  1948-49  Title  Page i The Yearbook of the United Nations​The Enlightenment:

∆  While your question may be interesting academically (only to a few), it applies no relevance to the reality as it was seen then by the Parties Involved.  Clearly the APG was not a parties, but could be considered a limited constituency with no capacity.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to argue this point is simply ridiculous.  Even the APG itself was not real.  That became obvious when the Egyptians dissolved the APG in 1959.  Where was the right of self-determination then?
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This is clearly an answer to a question, somewhere;  but irrelevant to this discussion.  The APG had no real constituency in the territory as a whole or in the sovereign control of Israel.  The Arabs of Palestine were represented by the AHC.

"PART I.

"The consultations among the permanent members of the Security Council and informal communications with the Palestine Commission, the Mandatory Power, the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee, held since March 5, 1948, have developed the following facts regarding the situation with respect to Palestine:

"1. The Jewish Agency accepts the partition plan, considers it to be the irreducible minimum acceptable to the Jews, and insists upon the implementation of the plan without modification.

"2. The Arab Higher Committee rejects any solution based on partition in any form and considers that the only acceptable solution is the formation of one independent State for the whole of Palestine, whose constitution would be based on democratic principles and which would include adequate safeguards for minorities and the safety of the Holy Places.

"3. No modifications in the essentials of the partition plan are acceptable to the Jewish Agency, and no modifications would make the plan acceptable to the Arab Higher Committee.

"4. The Palestine Commission, the Mandatory Power, the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee have indicated that the partition plan cannot be implemented by peaceful means under present conditions.

"5. The Mandatory Power has confirmed that a considerable number of incursions of illegal arms and armed elements into Palestine have occurred by land and sea.

"6. The gradual withdrawal of the military forces of the Mandatory Power will, in the absence of agreement, result in increasing violence and disorder in Palestine.  Warfare of a guerrilla type grows more violent constantly.

"7. If the mandate is terminated prior to a peaceful solution of the problem, large-scale fighting between the two communities can be expected.​
The importance here is that immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the principle players were the Palestine Commission, the Mandatory Power, the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee.  The All-Palestine Government was not established by the Arab League until on 22 September 1948.  "At its 200th meeting on 15 November, the First Committee decided, by a vote of 48 to none, with 5 abstentions, to grant a hearing to the Arab Higher Committee, in accordance with its request (A/C.1/335), to express the views of the Arabs of Palestine on the question of Palestine and on the report of the Mediator. The Committee, however, made no allusion to the credentials of the Higher Committee as representing the All-Palestine Government, as had been requested by the Higher Committee and the All-Palestine Government (A/C.1/339)."  See UN Yearbook 1948-49 Part i, Section 3, Page 168)

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Great Philosophers and Zen Masters, in discussions with students --- seldom impart data or direct knowledge to the students.  "Insight" and "enlightenment" are not a matter of memory or functions of language and mathematics.    "Insight" and "enlightenment" is attainable by means of a formula or scrupulously following rules or directions.   Instead, "insight" and "enlightenment" on the ability to adaptively think about individuals and the multiples, the local area, the global view, the solar community, the galactic constituents and the universe; orienting yourself to the conditions that present the "now."  It is sometimes a need to find a wholly new way of making sense of the reality _(U Yun Qin, ≈ 450 BCE)_.  In the 17th Century, in a period of enlightenment, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would come to call this the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR).  You may not know or understand the progression or a reason for a specific event, but if it happened, then their was a chain of causality.
> 
> ...


The importance here is that immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the principle players were the Palestine Commission, the Mandatory Power, the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee.

Palestine Commission - Foreigners
the Mandatory Power - Foreigners
the Jewish Agency - Foreigners
Arab Higher Committee - The only Palestinian body
So what happened to the only Palestinian representation?

When the Committee was outlawed in September 1937, six of its members were deported, its president Amin al-Husayni managed to escape arrest and went into exile in Beirut. Jamal al-Husayni escaped to Syria. Three other members were deported to the Seychelles, and other members moved into voluntary exile in neighbouring countries. Al-Hadi, who was out of the country at the time, was not allowed to return.

Arab Higher Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​
And your response will be a bunch of crap that foreigners did.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



You're rather selective in your cutting and pasting. From the wiki article:


On 26 September 1937, the Acting British District Commissioner of Galilee, Lewis Yelland Andrews, was assassinated in Nazareth. The next day Britain outlawed the Arab Higher Committee,[9] and began to arrest its members. On 1 October 1937, the National Bloc, the Reform Party and the Istiqlal Party were dissolved.[10] Yaqub al-Ghusayn, Al-Khalidi and Ahmed Hilmi Pasha were arrested and then deported.[10] Jamal al-Husayni escaped to Syria, as did Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni. Amin al-Husayni managed to escape arrest, but was removed from the presidency of the Supreme Muslim Council.[11] The Committee was banned by the Mandate administration and three members (and two other Palestinian leaders) were deported to the Seychelles and the others moved into voluntary exile in neighbouring countries.[12] Awni Abd al-Hadi, who was out of the country at the time, was not allowed to return. The National Defence Party, which had withdrawn from the AHC soon after its formation, was not outlawed, 



Who was responsible for the murder of Commissioner of Galilee, Lewis Yelland Andrews? Was it heavily armed, radical Lutherans?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> The Great Philosophers and Zen Masters, in discussions with students --- seldom impart data or direct knowledge to the students.  "Insight" and "enlightenment" are not a matter of memory or functions of language and mathematics.    "Insight" and "enlightenment" is attainable by means of a formula or scrupulously following rules or directions.   Instead, "insight" and "enlightenment" on the ability to adaptively think about individuals and the multiples, the local area, the global view, the solar community, the galactic constituents and the universe; orienting yourself to the conditions that present the "now."  It is sometimes a need to find a wholly new way of making sense of the reality _(U Yun Qin, ≈ 450 BCE)_.  In the 17th Century, in a period of enlightenment, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz would come to call this the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR).  You may not know or understand the progression or a reason for a specific event, but if it happened, then their was a chain of causality.
> 
> ...


The 1948 All Palestine Government (APG) Declaration of Independence which attempted to incorporate the sovereignty of Israel was then and is now "bogus."

I have heard that a gazillion times but nobody has posted anything showing it to be true.​
Nice smokescreen.

You ducked my post.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I don't know. It didn't say. Was it ever investigated?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



"The 1948 All Palestine Government (APG) Declaration of Independence which attempted to incorporate the sovereignty of Israel was then and is now "bogus."

I believe you will find that the Israelis have shown it to be bogus. 

You might be oxygen deprived from inhaling all that smoke.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You need to expand your horizons beyond selective cutting and pasting of wiki articles. Those radical Lutherans must be the culprits. 

How you retreat in those islamo-dancing shoes...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


I have heard the Israeli "say so" a gazillion times but nothing showing that to be true.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Your silly conspiracy theories are a hoot.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 17, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Through the entire Mandate Period, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) or some variation on the theme (the Arab Delegation) represented theArab Palestinian interests.  It is only after the bid to destroy the Jewish National Home in May 1948, that the some various failed factions of the Arab Palestinians jump-up and claim misrepresentation.

This is merely just another way for the Arab Palestinian to adorn themselves with the perpetual victim mask, and blame someone else; even themselves disguised as someone else, for their continuous failures.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The importance here is that immediately prior to the outbreak of hostilities, the principle players were the Palestine Commission, the Mandatory Power, the Jewish Agency and the Arab Higher Committee.  The All-Palestine Government was not established by the Arab League until on 22 September 1948.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This idea of "foreigners" was nothing new.  This Xenophobic idea, and the Palestine Arab Congress (PAC), dates back a time when the area was under the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA).   It should also be pointed out that even though you complain about the "bunch of crap that foreigners did," you turn around and cite the Third PAC and the call "for Palestine to be part of the independent Arab state promised in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence."  _(Notice that both British High Commissioner and the Sharif of Mecca are "foreigners.")_  And the independent Arab State promised to was to become known as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and ruled by Crown Prince Abdullah.  However a totally separate agreement between two of the Principle Allied Powers, known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, specified that most of Palestine was to be entrusted to an international administration. The agreement clearly contradicted the promises made to Sharif Hussein of Mecca.  But again, none of this revolves around some specific population known as the Arabs of Palestine.

While Jamal al-Husayn was eventually arrested by the British in 1941 and exiled to Southern Rhodesia (AKA Zimbabwe), he did return to become the Foreign Minister of the Egyptian created All-Palestine Government (APG).  You also mention "Amin al-Husayni _[more commonly known as Mohammed Amin al-Husseini (one-time Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and once a WWI enemy Ottoman Army Artillery Officer; and WWII NAZI Collaborator)]_ who became the 'Chairman of the Arab Higher Executive' (AHE) and the Egyptian installed President of the APG, was a prominently associated antisemitic Riots from 1928 on and various hostile Palestinian nationalist groups.

There is little question that we could argue the merits of foreign connections the various Arabs of Palestine had with the "Allied Powers" _(foreigners as you would have it)_.  But just remember, it was the "foreigners" _(the Allied Powers)_ that were the recipients of all title and rights to the territory that was to come under the Mandate for Palestine.

*(SIDEBAR)*

Yes the original AHC was outlawed in 1937.  But the Arab League reconstituted it immediately after the end of WWII.  It was the AHC of 1945 that rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1948, that reaffirmed the Arabs of Palestine could not recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom, and declared the creation of any Jewish state in an Arab territory is more than invasion or aggression; and made the solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  Hollie,  et al,

This is representative of the contributions to the discussion he makes.



P F Tinmore said:


>


*(COMMENT)*

His strategy is to twist-up the issues such that the question is nonsensical.  Then sits back and makes fun of any answer provided.

v/r
R


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  Hollie,  et al,
> 
> This is representative of the contributions to the discussion he makes.
> 
> ...



I had suggested to P F Tinmore that he do a bit of research on the events surrounding the murder of Lewis Andrews. However, I've come to expect very little from him in that regard. 

AUSTRALIAN SHOTDEAD. - PALESTINE CRIME. Saved His Colleague. JERUSALEM, Sept. 27. - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) - 28 Sep 1937


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 18, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Through the entire Mandate Period, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) or some variation on the theme (the Arab Delegation) represented theArab Palestinian interests.  It is only after the bid to destroy the Jewish National Home in May 1948, that the some various failed factions of the Arab Palestinians jump-up and claim misrepresentation.
> 
> ...


The Palestinians have the right to defend their country.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



It's an odd notion that "defending their (non-existent) country centers around Islamic terrorists attempting to enforce an ancient theocratic code and more recent "Charter" that calls for the murder of Jews. 

Explain to us how committing acts of war directed at a sovereign nation is "defending their country".


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 18, 2016)

Hollie,  et al,

I'm not sure that the pro-Arab Palestinians would actually find this objectionable.



Hollie said:


> I had suggested to P F Tinmore that he do a bit of research on the events surrounding the murder of Lewis Andrews. However, I've come to expect very little from him in that regard.
> 
> AUSTRALIAN SHOTDEAD. - PALESTINE CRIME. Saved His Colleague. JERUSALEM, Sept. 27. - The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) - 28 Sep 1937


*(COMMENT)*

I find it hard to believe that the pro-Arab Palestinians do not see a pattern of unacceptable behaviors by their Islamic Political Leaders.  Whether they are involved in the British District Commissioner, the assassination of a King while at prayer in the al-Aqsa Mosque, or the murder of a US Senator; the Arab Palestinians always find someone else to blame.

v/r
R


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Of course they do; if they had a country.  But former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic was not "their country."



P F Tinmore said:


> The Palestinians have the right to defend their country.


*(COMMENT)*

Where and when did they have sovereignty and independence?  It certainly was not a matter of being an inhabitant.  It certainly did not have anything to do with the treaty: as the title and rights where placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 How can arab muslims from Egypt, and muslims from pakistan be palestinians ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 No you ducked the answer because it was not the one you wanted to see


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Selective reading again so you dont have to admot to the truth


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 Only because you refuse to read the reports showing it to be bogus. Just as you refuse to read the parts of the Mandate that apply to the Jews and their national home


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...





 So why aren't they in their country defending it then, as they never had ownership or sovereignty of palestine in living memory


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


More Israeli say so.

Palestinians all over the world are still defending their country.


----------



## Hollie (Aug 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


One can hardly define attacks aimed at Isreal from islamic terrorist controlled areas such as Gaza as defending anything, certainly not some mythical Pal'istan you believe exists.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 So can I defend mine by killing muslims outside of the nation my country is at war with. Firing illegal weapons at Israel civilians is not defense it is out and out terrorism. Planting bombs in shops frequented by Israeli children is not defense it is out and out racism. You defend against attack, which is what Israel does, you dont instigate the violence and then claim it is self defrnse.like the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians do.


----------

